Loading...
2006-09-05 PacketCITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY - - - SEPTEMBER 5, 2006 - - - 6:00 P.M. Time: Tuesday, September 5, 2006, 6:00 p.m. Place: City Council Chathbers Conference Room, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street Agenda: 1. Roll Call 2. Public Comment on Agenda Items Only Anyone wishing to speak on agenda items only, may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per item 3. Adjournment to Closed Session to consider: 3 -A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS Agency negotiators: Craig Jory and Human Resources Director Employee organizations: Alameda City Employees Association, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Management and Confidential Employees Association, and Executive Management Group 3 -B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION Name of case: Zornes v. City of Alameda et al. 4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any 5. Adjournment Housing Authority of the City of Alameda 701 Atlantic Avenue - Alameda, California 94501 -2161 - TEL: (510) 747 -4300 - FAX: (510) 522 -7848 - TDD: (510) 522 -8467 IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE BOARD: 1. Please file a speaker's slip with the Executive Director, and upon recognition by the Chair, approach the rostrum and state your name; speakers are limited to 3 minutes per item. 2. Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and only a summary of pertinent points presented verbally. 3. Applause and demonstrations are prohibited during Board of Commissioners meetings. AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DATE & TIME Tuesday, September 5, 2006, 7:25 PM LOCATION City Hall, Council Chambers, Room 390, 2263 Santa Clara Ave., Alameda, CA Welcome to the Board of Commissioners of the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda meeting. Regular Board of Commissioners meetings are held on the first Tuesday of each quarter in the Council Chambers at City Hall. Public Participation Anyone wishing to address the Board on agenda items or business introduced by Commissioners may speak for a maximum of three minutes per agenda item when the subject is before the Board. Please file a speaker's slip with the Housing Authority Executive Director if you wish to address the Board of Commissioners. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1. ROLL CALL - Board of Commissioners 2. CONSENT CALENDAR • Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be approved or accepted by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the Board of Commissioners or a member of the public. 2 -A. Approving Award of Contract for Siding Replacement at Eagle Village in an Amount Not to Exceed $167,200 and Authorize the Executive Director to Execute Contract. The Chief Executive Officer recommends the Board of Commissioners: Board of Commissioners Meeting September 5, 2006 Page 2 1. Award a contract to Bay Cities Construction for $152,000 plus up to an additional 10 percent for change orders in an amount not to exceed amount of $167,200, to replace siding at Eagle Village; 2. Authorize the Executive Director to execute the contract; and 3. Increase the budget by $167,200 to cover the siding project. 3. AGENDA 3 -A. None. 4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, Non - Agenda (Public Comment) 5. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS, (Communications from the Commissioners) 6. ADJOURNMENT Note: * Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact Carol Weaver, Secretary, at 747 -4325 voice or 522 -8467 TDD at least 72 hours before the meeting to request an interpreter. * Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) is available. * Minutes of the meeting are available in large print. * Audiotapes of the meeting are available on request. * Please contact Carol Weaver at 747 -4325 voice of 522 -8467 TDD at least 72 hours prior to the meeting to request agenda materials in an alternative format, or any other reasonable accommodation that may be necessary to participate in and enjoy the benefits of the meeting. CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION TUESDAY - - - SEPTEMBER 5, 2006 - - - 7:27 P.M. Location: City Council Chambers, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street. Public Participation Anyone wishing to address the Commission on agenda items or business introduced by the Commission may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per agenda item when the subject is before the Commission. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish to speak. ROLL CALL MINUTES Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and CIC Meeting held on July 26, 2006; the Special Joint City Council, ARRA, CIC and HABOC Meeting held on August 2, 2006; and the Special CIC Meeting held on August 24, 2006. (City Clerk) AGENDA ITEMS 1. Recommendation to consider Appeal of Determination that applicants are not eligible to purchase a below market rate home at Bayport. (Development Services) ADJOURNMENT Beverly Joh ,V ChLir Community Improvement Commission CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL: 1. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk and upon recognition by the Mayor, approach the podium and state your name; speakers are limited to three (3) minutes per item. 2. Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and only a summary of pertinent points presented verbally. 3. Applause and demonstration are prohibited during Council meetings. AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY - - - SEPTEMBER 5, 2006 - - - - 7:30 P.M. [Note: Regular Council Meeting convenes at 7:30 p.m., City Hall, Council Chambers, corner of Santa Clara Ave and Oak St.] The Order of Business for City Council Meeting is as follows: 1. Roll Call 2. Agenda Changes 3. Proclamations, Special Orders of the Day and Announcements 4. Consent Calendar 5. Agenda Items 6. Oral Communications, Non - Agenda (Public Comment) 7. Council Communications (Communications from Council) 8. Adjournment Public Participation Anyone wishing to address the Council on agenda items or business introduced by Councilmembers may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per agenda item when the subject is before the Council. Please file a speaker's slip if you wish to address the City Council. SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL 6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM Separate Agenda (Closed Session) SPECIAL MEETING OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD 7:25 P.M. OF COMMISSIONERS, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Separate Agenda SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT 7:27 P.M. COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Separate Agenda 1. ROLL CALL - City Council 2. AGENDA CHANGES 3. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 3 -A. Proclamation expressing thanks to Contra Costa Newspapers and Its Employees, Gary Kidwell and Michael Switzer. (Development Services) 3 -B. Proclamation declaring September 17, 2006 as Alameda Legacy Home Tour Day in the City of Alameda. 3 -C. Presentation by West Alameda Business Association regarding the Peanut Butter and Jam festival. 3 -D. Library project update. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or adopted by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the Council or a member of the public. 4 -A. Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on August 15, 2006. (City Clerk) 4 -B. Bills for ratification. (Finance) 4 -C. Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report for the Period Ending March 31, 2006. (Finance) 4 -D. Recommendation to amend the Consultant Agreement with Consolidated Construction Management extending the term, scope of work and price for the Alameda Free Library, New Main Library Project, No. P.W. 01- 03 -01. (Library) 4 -E. Recommendation to reject Bids for the Modular Recreational Building and Site Improvements at Washington Park; and • Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Open Market Negotiation of Contract Pursuant to Section 3 -15 of the Alameda City Charter for the Modular Recreational Building and Site Improvements at Washington Park, No. P.W. 05- 06 -17, and Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into Such an Agreement for $650,000, Including a 10% Contingency. [Requires four affirmative votes] (Public Works) 4 -F. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Open Market Purchase of Twelve Vehicles from Good Chevrolet, Alameda in an Amount Not to Exceed $251,230.00. [Requires four affirmative votes] (Public Works) 4 -G. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing and Approving Sale of Emergency Generators and Associated Electric Equipment to Cummins West, Inc. for $832,000. (Alameda Power and Telecom) 4 -H. Adoption of Resolution Amending Exhibit A - Compensation Plan Established by Council Resolution 13545 and Amended by Resolutions 13626, 13689 and 13977 to Establish a Five -Day Workweek Alternative with a Corresponding Salary Range for the Classifications of Library Director, Recreation and Parks Director and Deputy City Manager, and Remove the Exclusivity of the Alameda Point Project Assignment for the Deputy City Manager, and Amend Section 13 Separability of Provisions; • Adoption of Resolution Amending the Management and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA) Salary Schedule by Establishing Salary Ranges for the Classifications of Principle Executive Assistant, Purchasing and Payables Coordinator and Supervising Animal Control Officer; and • Adoption of Resolution Amending the Alameda City Employees Association (ACEA) Salary Schedule by Establishing the Salary Range for the Classification of Transportation Coordinator. (Human Resources) 4 -I. Adoption of Resolution Appointing Rebecca A. Kozak to the Bay Area Library Information System (BALIS) Advisory Board. (Library) 4 -J. Final Passage of Ordinance Approving and Authorizing the Lease of City -Owned Property at 3367 Fernside Boulevard to Arthur M. Jawad and Julia Jawad. [Requires four affirmative votes] (Development Services) 4 -K. Public Hearing to consider Introduction of Ordinance Reclassifying and Rezoning Certain Property Within the City of Alameda from Open Space (0) to Community Manufacturing Planned Development (CM -PD) by Amending Zoning Ordinance No. 1277, N.S. for that Property Located at 500 Maitland Drive. (Planning and Building) 5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 5 -A. Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Historical Advisory Board's denial of the alteration of more than thirty percent of the value of historically designated single- family homes at 1530, 1532, and 1532 Ninth Street; and adoption of related resolution. (Planning and Building) 5 -B. Public Hearing to consider Adoption of Resolution Amending Master Fee Resolution No. 12191 to Revise and Streamline the Planning and Building, Public Works and Fire Departments Fee Schedules. (Planning and Building) 5 -C. Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Subsection 13- 2.2(e) (Modifications, Amendments and Deletions to the California Building Code) of Section 13 -2 (Alameda Building Code) of Chapter XIII (Building and Housing), to Incorporate Specific Requirements for the Installation of Fire Extinguishing Systems. (Fire) 5 -D. Public Hearing to consider ZA06 -0001, Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment City -wide; and • Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Subsection 30- 4.9A.g.8 (Off- Street Parking and Loading Space) of the C -C Community Commercial Zone of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations), to Add a Process for Parking Exceptions. (Planning and Building) 6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA (Public Comment) Any person may address the Council in regard to any matter over which the Council has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance, that is not on the agenda. 7. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (Communications from Council) Councilmembers can address any matter, including reporting on any Conferences or meetings attended. 7 -A. Consideration of Mayor's nominations for the Economic Development Commission, Golf Commission, and Recreation and Park Commission. 8. ADJOURNMENT • For use in preparing the Official Record, speakers reading a written statement are invited to submit a copy to the City Clerk at the meeting or e -mail to: lweisige @ci.alameda.ca.us • Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact the City Clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD number 522 -7538 at least 72 hours prior to the Meeting to request an interpreter • Equipment for the hearing impaired is available for public use. For assistance, please contact the City Clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD number 522 -7538 either prior to, or at, the Council Meeting • Accessible seating for persons with disabilities, including those using wheelchairs, is available • Minutes of the meeting available in enlarged print • Audio Tapes of the meeting are available upon request • Please contact the City Clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD number 522 -7538 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to request agenda materials in an alternative format, or any other reasonable accommodation that may be necessary to participate in and enjoy the benefits of the meeting "-+-7"111.1'_ Housing Authority of the City of Alameda 701 Atlantic Avenue - Alameda, California 94501 -2161 - Tel: (510) 747 -4300 - Fax: (510)522 -7848 - TDD: (510) 522 -8467 September 5, 2006 To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Board of Commissioners From: Debra Kurita Chief Executive Officer Re: Approving Award of Contract for Siding Replacement at Eagle Village in an Amount not to Exceed $167,200 and Authorize the Executive Director to Execute Contract BACKGROUND This year's budget includes an extraordinary maintenance project (EMPs) at Eagle Village to replace sections of siding that had not been replaced due to lack of funding when the majority of the siding was replaced several years ago. The Housing Authority issued an Invitation for Bids (IFB) on June 7, 2006, and received two responsive bids of $245,750 and $450,075, substantially higher than the cost estimate. Neither bid was accepted. DISCUSSION Housing Authority staff found that the cost of plywood siding has increased substantially since 2002, when the previous siding work was completed. Staff's revised project cost estimate is $199,763. The two bids received in response to the June 7 IFB exceed this revised estimate. The Housing Authority solicited additional bids using the specifications and plans used in the formal IFB. One contractor, Bay Cities Construction submitted a bid of $152,000. This contractor meets all Housing Authority requirements and has a known track record for acceptable performance. Due to the fast approaching rainy season, staff is bringing this recommendation directly to the Board of Commissioners rather than bringing it first tp the Housing Commission for its recommendation. A copy of the contract is on file in The City Clerk's Office. FISCAL IMPACT Staff recommends amending the budget to include this project for the recommended contract amount. The cost would be $152,000 plus 10 percent for contingencies, for a total of $167,200. Proceeds from the Eagle Village and Parrot Village bond refinancing which took place last year will cover the cost of both parts of this project. Agenda Item #X -A 9 -5 -06 HABOC Honorable Chair and Members September 5, 2006 of the Board of Commissioners Page 2 of 2 RECOMMENDATION The Chief Executive Officer recommends the Board of Commissioners: 1. Award a contract to Bay Cities Construction for $152,000 plus up to an additional 10 percent for change orders in an amount not to exceed amount of $167,200, to replace siding at Eagle Village; 2. Authorize the Executive Director to execute the contract; and 3. Increase the budget by $167,200 to cover the siding project. MTP:ED Respectfully submitted / / ir ,,,.„e,__. Michael T. Pu ci Executive Director UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY- -JULY 26, 2006- -7:00 P.M. Mayor /Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:25 p.m. Boy Scout Troop 2 led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL - MINUTES Present: Councilmembers /Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese and Mayor/ Chair Johnson - 5. Absent: None. (06- CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission (CIC) Meetings held on July 5, 2006, and Special CIC Meetings held on July 5, 2006 and July 14, 2006. Approved. Commissioner deHaan moved approval of the Minutes. Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. AGENDA ITEMS (06- CIC) Recommendation to award Design -Build Contract in the amount of $9,104,000 to C. Overaa & Co. for the Civic Center Parking Garage, CIP No. 90 -19; (06- ACIC) Recommendation to award Construction Contract in the amount of $8,800,000 to C. Overaa & Co. for Rehabilitation and Restoration of the Historic Alameda Theater; (06- 384CC) Resolution No. 14003, "Authorizing the Execution of U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Contract for Loan Guarantee Assistance Under Section 108 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as Amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 5308; Execution of Brownfields Economic Development Initiative (BEDI) Grant Agreement; and Issuance of Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program Variable Rate Note." Adopted; Recommendation to authorize execution of Cooperation Agreement between the City and Community Improvement Commission; and (06- 384ACC) Resolution No. 14004, "Authorizing the Summary Vacation of a Portion of the Central Avenue Public Right -of -Way Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Community Improvement Commission July 26, 2006 1 pursuant to Chapter 4 of the Streets and Highways Codes." Adopted. The Development Services Director and Development Manager gave a Power Point presentation and provided two documents. Councilmember /Commissioner Matarrese requested clarification on whether the disability access is for the access only or also an emergency exit for everyone. The Development Manager responded the ramp serves as the disabled access entry and emergency exit for everyone. Councilmember /Commissioner deHaan inquired whether dollar saving figures were identified for the western enclosure, wheelchair lift, and roof repair. The Development Manager responded in the negative; stated savings came out of various divisions for each item; changes in scope were tracked but not the total savings for each item. Councilmember /Commissioner deHaan inquired whether said savings reduced the base bid. The Development Services Director responded the savings reduced Overaa's $9.7 million base bid to $8.8 million. The Development Manager stated savings were also realized by seeking out different subcontractors. Councilmember /Commissioner deHaan stated dollar figures were provided for each parking garage line item; inquired whether dollar figures could be placed on the theater items. The Development Manager responded dollar figures were not placed on the theater items because the intent was to keep track of the scope in order to get a price that made sense and was within budget. The Development Services Director continued with her presentation. Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether the marquee line item was for full restoration. The Development Services Director responded the marquee line item would be for all restoration except re- stenciling the pattern that was under the marquee. Councilmember /Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the light Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Community Improvement Commission July 26, 2006 2 sequencing would be replaced. The Development Services Director responded she was not sure whether the sign could be animated within budget. Councilmember /Commissioner deHaan inquired whether another scheme reduced the parking garage size to four levels plus the roof. The Development Services Director responded said scheme was not evaluated but could be a cost savings to the project; stated the project could be constructed within the existing budget if the parking garage size was reduced to four levels. Councilmember /Commissioner deHaan stated he was leaning towards a five - screen theater and a five -level parking garage, which would provide more seats and might not jeopardize retail as much; numbers could be extrapolated to reduce the cost by $2 to $2.5 million. The Development Services Manager continued with her presentation. Councilmember /Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the HUD loan had certain parameters. The Development Manager responded job generation is one of the major criteria. The Development Services Director stated the HUD program no longer exists. Councilmember /Commissioner Daysog inquired whether an increase in retail square footage would increase jobs. The Development Services Director responded possibly; stated the HUD application cannot be re- evaluated and re- ranked at this time. Vice Mayor /Commissioner Gilmore stated the City risks losing $7 million in HUD funding if the City gets too far away from the approved project parameters. The Development Services Director stated the developer has agreed to take on all the operating costs for the Historic Theater because of the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) conditions and projected revenue generation; funds would need to be taken out of the General Fund if the City took over operation and maintenance. Councilmember /Commissioner deHaan inquired whether deferred interest was one of the benefits of the HUD loan. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Community Improvement Commission July 26, 2006 3 The Development Services Director responded that the City received a $800,000 deferred interest grant; the grant money would be used to make payments in the first few years until the project earns income. Councilmember /Commissioner deHaan inquired what was the interest rate, to which the Development Services Director responded 5.75%. Councilmember /Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the HUD funding would be lost with Scheme 2 because there would not be enough job generation. The Development Services Director responded the issue is not just job generation; stated there are also public and private leverage considerations; losing the Cineplex would take away the minimum guarantee of $1.2 million in furniture, fixtures, and equipment (FFE) and $5.2 million in private developer capital. Councilmember /Commissioner deHaan inquired whether making the assumption that HUD funding would not be completely gone would be appropriate at this point [Scheme 2], to which the Development Services Director responded that she would not make the assumption. The Development Services Director continued with her presentation. Councilmember /Commissioner deHaan stated the Scheme 3 parking garage cost increased by almost $11 million. The Development Services Director stated the Scheme 3 parking garage increased to 540 spaces. Councilmember /Commissioner deHaan stated a certain amount of money could be saved immediately because a quarter of the Elks' parking lot is already leased by the City. Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether the Elks have ever indicated an interest in selling the property to the City. The Development Services Director responded the Elks considered entering into a transaction if the City rebuilt the gymnasium. Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether the Elks would transfer property to the City, to which the Development Services Director responded she did not know. Councilmember /Commissioner deHaan stated he is concerned that said Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Community Improvement Commission July 26, 2006 4 discussions did not take place. The Development Services Director continued with her presentation. Councilmember /Commissioner deHaan stated that the $15 million Scheme 5 parking structure cost is overstated because the parking structure would not be as elaborate. Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether the $15 million cost included acquisition, to which the Development Services Director responded in the affirmative. Mayor /Chair Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing. Proponents (In favor of the staff recommendation): Harry Dahlberg, Economic Development Commission; Lars Hanssen, Park Street Business Association (PSBA); Michael J. Krueger, Alameda; Susan Decker, Alameda; Pauline Kelley, Alameda; Duane Watson, Alameda; Barbara Marchand, Alameda; Harry Hartman, Alameda; Walt Jacobs, Alameda Chamber of Commerce; Melody Marr, Alameda Chamber of Commerce (read list of 17 names); Norma Henning, Alameda; Robb Ratto, PSBA. Opponents (Not in favor of the staff recommendation): Woody Minor, Alameda; Ani Dimusheva, Alameda; Joe Meylor, Alameda (submitted handout); Pat Bail, Alameda; David Kirwin, Alameda; Janet Gibson, Alameda; Judith Lynch, Historical Advisory Board; Kristianne Koenen, Alameda; Kevin Fredrick, Alameda. There being no further speakers, Mayor /Chair Johnson closed the public portion of the Hearing. Councilmember /Commissioner Daysog thanked staff for providing alternatives; stated he prefers Scheme 2 where the attention is focused on reusing the Historic Theater and having a smaller garage; he understands that Scheme 2 posses a risk of losing $7 million in HUD loans; theater jobs would be lost, but retail jobs would increase; the City takes pride in running public enterprises; he thinks the City could do a good job of operating the Historic Theater and a smaller parking garage; the operation of the theater entails public subsidy under the status quo scenario; rent would be approximately 40 cents per square foot for the Historic Theater; the market rate for a new operating theater is approximately $1.50 per square foot; the City should get more than 40 cents per square foot; the City is losing out on the differential in rent; he sees Scheme 2 as a smaller scaled, hometown movie theater; the Historic Theater should be restored to the full potential that the citizens want; questioned whether cuts might ruin the historic quality. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Community Improvement Commission July 26, 2006 5 Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired how the square foot price was determined for the Historic Theater. The Development Services Director responded cost comparisons were done against brand new, first -run construction at $1.30 per square foot average; the budget starts out with a lease rate of $72,000 per year for years one through six; the rate jumps to $156,000 per year for years seven through ten; the rate would be based on the CPI starting in year eleven, with a 3% floor and 5% ceiling; the developer would be required to make a $1.2 million FF &E commitment; the operating costs would be very slim in the first six years, especially when there is a FF &E load to retire; a 17% profit participation has been included in the event the project stabilizes at a higher rate than estimated; the City would share in percentage rent if the project produces better than expected; the City would receive payments just about equal to what the developer and investors are getting. Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether the profit participation continues throughout the lease. The Development Services Director responded the profit participation is reduced to about 12% at the time the first loan is repaid. Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether the square footage rate is a minimum rental amount, to which the Development Services Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember /Commissioner Daysog stated that translating items into square foot terms would not overcome the existing difference of 90 cents per square foot; related discussions were held last August; he would rather get the money up front. The Development Services Director stated the City is leveraging a minimum of $5.3 million in private investment as a result of the agreement. Councilmember /Commissioner Daysog stated said investment contributed to the division within the community. Councilmember /Commissioner deHaan stated there was a $4.5 million delta between the bids; the project includes the Cineplex, Historic Theater and parking garage; inquired whether there was a guarantee that the Cineplex financing was in place now. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Community Improvement Commission July 26, 2006 6 The Development Services Director responded that the developer has a commitment for construction and permanent financing; the Bank of Alameda extended the commitment for six months; the developer has raised $2 million of additional equity and is trying to finalize the construction bids; the developer is planning to apply for permits in early September. Councilmember /Commission deHaan inquired whether staff received documents verifying that the financing is in place. The Development Services Director responded the City has a copy of the loan commitment; the appraisal and placement of the equity into the loan are the only contingencies left on the loan commitment. Councilmember /Commissioner deHaan stated the Cineplex and the parking garage property line has been pushed four to five feet on Oak Street and dog legs out. The Development Services Director stated the sidewalk dog legs out; the City performed a survey of the property; the property showed that the public sidewalk encroached six feet onto the private property; originally a bulb out at the corner and removing the parking on the City's portion of the parcel was contemplated for a variety of traffic safety and pedestrian concerns; originally, the bulb was to be fourteen feet wide and would now be ten feet wide; the average downtown sidewalk is eight feet wide. Councilmember /Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the sidewalk would be four -feet without the bulb out. The Development Services Director responded the sidewalk would be six feet because the property line would be set back two feet. Councilmember /Commissioner deHaan stated that he is concerned about the massive walls in the area; inquired why substituting surety bonds was pulled off the agenda and whether the matter was relevant to tonight's discussion. The Development Services Director responded that the staff recommended that the $200,000 offset come from the division's operating fund for salaries. Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether tonight's discussion on the theater budget included everything, to which the Development Services Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember /Commissioner deHaan commended staff for making $4.5 Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Community Improvement Commission July 26, 2006 7 million in value engineering reductions; stated there is slim to no wiggle room in case a problem arises; inquired whether a 15% contingency is adequate. The Development Services Director responded staff recommends reducing the contingency to 5% for the garage and 13% for the theater; stated $250,000 has been budgeted for soil conditions; testing has been done; she hopes to add back the contingency after construction has started; she feels adequately protected. Councilmember /Commissioner deHaan stated $5 million was to be set aside for the catalyst Webster Street project; the money is out of the budget now; inquired how the project would be funded. The Development Services Director responded there are a number of ideas for funding the project; stated $13.5 million was raised to retire the Marina Village infrastructure obligations; the Marina Village project had a repayment of $2.5 million to the General Fund load; $2 million was given to the Library Project; another $2 million has been used in the operation of the theater project; staff has requested that the $1 million coming back from the Library project be distributed back to the theater project; other opportunities include replacing cash reserves and renegotiating the Catellus Project which has uncommitted tax increment and land proceeds. Councilmember /Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the West End generated all the bond funding. The Development Services Director responded 48% came from Business Waterfront Improvement Project (BWIP) and 52% came from the West End. Councilmember /Commissioner Daysog moved approval of directing further analysis of Scheme 2. Councilmember /Commissioner deHaan stated various schemes were revisited because other options needed to be reviewed; the schemes need to be revisited in case the City is unable to value engineer the project back in line; possible cost savings are obvious and provide for more leeway in case there is a problem. Councilmember /Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion. On the call for the question, THE MOTION FAILED by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers /Commissioners Daysog and deHaan - 2. Noes: Councilmembers /Commissioners Gilmore and Matarrese and Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Community Improvement Commission July 26, 2006 8 Mayor /Chair Johnson - 3. The Development Services Director stated concerns need to be reiterated regarding a smaller project; ground rent and revenue would be reduced. Councilmember /Commissioner deHaan stated the project cost could be reduced by $3 million to $4 million with a five - screen theater and a five -level parking garage; the equation would be changed minimally; stated Councilmember /Commission Daysog requested that options be reviewed. Vice Mayor /Commissioner Gilmore stated the City would not need to contribute approximately $2 million if an operator would not operate the Historic Theater and provide the maintenance; the maintenance cost would come out of the General Fund and would have no cap. Councilmember /Commissioner Matarrese stated that he looks at the alternatives as fall backs; he is pleased that the theater has been acquired; concurred with Councilmember /Commissioner Daysog regarding restoring the Historic Theater as much as possible; stated the Historic Theater is a civic treasure; he is nervous about construction in a historic building and the contingency dropping from 15% to 13%; he has some comfort in that the value engineering process lessens the risk of the 2% contingency reduction; he is interested in what other funds might be available to provide more comfort; the main cost of the project is the Historic Theater; he is willing to support the staff recommendation. Vice Mayor /Commissioner Gilmore stated the City does not own the Elks' parking garage or the U.S. Bank parking site; the City has not discussed acquiring either site with the property owners; parcel costs go up once the City expresses interest in purchasing a parcel; construction costs are escalating; the City would be running the risk of not having dollars in place to acquire the property, going through the design review process, and building a parking structure on either site. Mayor /Chair Johnson stated other funding sources should be reviewed in the event that extra costs are incurred; concurred with Councilmembers /Commissioners Daysog and Matarrese regarding restoring the Historic Theater to the greatest extent that the City can afford; stated the City needs to be prepared for possible extra costs before starting the parking structure; she was happy to see that the City of Oakland was going forward with the restoration of Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Community Improvement Commission July 26, 2006 9 the Fox Theater; the restoration does not appear to be a theater project; the City of Oakland is contributing $57 million to renovate the Fox Theater; she is happy that the Historic Theater is being renovated as a theater and is owned by the City; her personal preference would be to restore the Historic Theater as a single - screen theater; Council needs to be responsible for how much public money is spent; she would support a motion to support the staff recommendation. Vice Mayor /Commissioner Gilmore stated there is an "Other Costs" line item for the parking garage and theater rehabilitation; the line item for the parking garage is over $1.4 million and over $1.8 million for the theater; a cost breakdown was provided for both line items; the document is available as a public document. Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether phasing is planned for the theater restoration. The Development Services Director responded the construction project would start within the next 30 -45 days; stated the Historic Theater construction will be the most time consuming; the plan would be to do the garage and then the Historic Theater; the Cineplex would start two to three months later; the entire project should be completed within a year and a half; a $3 million grant application was submitted to the State for historic preservation money; high marks were received except in one category; she does not think that one evaluator understood the financial statement; the grant would be resubmitted and she is optimistic about receiving the grant. Councilmember /Commissioner Daysog stated that the point of his failed motion was to further analyze Scheme 2; costs are involved with a stand alone, three - screen theater; cautioned colleagues from using scare tactics such as General Fund dollars subsidizing the project; stated the Golf Complex, ferry system, electric and cable systems are all self- funding enterprises; revenue would be generated through retail which could help towards running the theater; options need to be vetted. Vice Mayor /Commissioner Gilmore stated she brought up the General Fund because dollars coming from tax increment redevelopment funds cannot be used to pay maintenance costs; she did not intend her statement to be a scare tactic, but only to address how things work. Councilmember /Commissioner Daysog stated there are other revenue opportunities such as the retail square footage. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Community Improvement Commission July 26, 2006 10 Councilmember /Commissioner deHaan stated the City is doing the project to revitalize Park Street; the theater would bring more retail activity in the Park Street area and would help generate revenue; revenue does not have to come directly from the theater project. The Development Services Director stated she would hope that tax increment would be received. Councilmember /Commissioner deHaan stated the catalyst project would generate a tax funding stream. Councilmember /Commissioner Matarrese concurred with Councilmember /Commissioner deHaan regarding the theater project revitalizing Park Street; stated the theater project revitalizes the whole City, puts money into the tax increment pool, and captures a lot of the money that goes off the island; the theater project is the best, real bonafide option to reopen the building as a theater, revitalize the historic business district, and keep a lot of discretionary dollars in the City. Councilmember /Commissioner Matarrese approval of the staff recommendations [including the Development Services Director's recommendation that $200,000 come from the Development Services operating fund salaries] and adoption of the resolutions. Vice Mayor /Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember /Commissioner deHaan stated that he would not vote in favor of Councilmember /Commissioner Matarrese's motion; the project is now in a situation where the massing and the scale is disproportionate; Oak Street traffic would be impacted; he does not mean to infer that he does not support the Historic Theater, the Cineplex and parking garage in some form; the project got larger than life on a postage stamp piece of property; the wheelchair lift elimination should be reconsidered; said elimination would be the death for twelve public uses of the theater per year. Councilmember /Commissioner Matarrese requested staff to provide wheelchair lift rental costs so that the public can be assured that a wheelchair lift would be provided for public use of the theater. The Development Manager responded wheelchair lift rental is standard practice; stated the intent is to have a wheelchair lift available for the twelve public days. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Community Improvement Commission July 26, 2006 11 Councilmember /Commissioner deHaan inquired what would be the cost to put the wheelchair lift back in as a line item, to which the Development Manager responded approximately $80,000. Mayor /Chair Johnson recommended that the motion include direction for staff to provide the cost and budget source for the rental of a wheelchair lift. Councilmember /Commissioner Matarrese and Vice Mayor /Commissioner Gilmore agreed to amend the motion to include Mayor /Chair Johnson's recommendation. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers /Commissioners Gilmore, Matarrese and Mayor /Chair Johnson - 3. Noes: Councilmembers /Commissioners Daysog and deHaan -2. (06- CIC) Recommendation to authorize substitution of Surety Bond for 2003 Merged Area Bond Issue Cash Reserve Account consistent with Bond Indenture. Withdrawn. Chair Johnson announced that the matter was withdrawn from the agenda. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor /Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 10:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Community Improvement Commission July 26, 2006 12 UNAPPROVED MINUTES SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION AND HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING WEDNESDAY- - AUGUST 2, 2006- -5:45 P.M. Vice Mayor /Authority Member /Commissioner /Board Member Gilmore convened the Special Joint Meeting at 5:55 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers / Authority Members / Commissioners / Board Members Daysog, deHaan, Matarrese, and Gilmore - 4. Absent: Mayor /Chair Johnson - 1. The Special Joint Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (06- 399CC/06- CIC) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name of case: Operation Dignity v. Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, Community Improvement Commission, City of Alameda and Housing Authority of the City of Alameda. Following the Closed Session, the Special Joint Meeting was reconvened and Vice Mayor /Authority Member /Commissioner /Board Member Gilmore announced that the Council /Authority Members /Commissioners/ Board Members received a briefing on parameters of an agreement from staff and gave direction to staff. Adjournment There being no further business, Vice Mayor /Authority Member /Commissioner /Board Member adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 6:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, Community Improvement Commission, and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners August 2, 2006 UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING THURSDAY- - AUGUST 24, 2006- -6:01 P.M. Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:45 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent: None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (06- ) Conference with Real Property Negotiators; Property: Alameda Landing; Negotiating parties: City of Alameda Community Improvement Commission and Catellus; Under negotiation: Price and terms. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Chair Johnson announced that the Commission received a briefing from its real property negotiator regarding potential sale price of the property to ProLogis ( Catellus) and gave director to negotiator to pursue a potential structure to sell the property at least risk to the Commission in the event the project is re- entitled. Adjournment There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger Secretary The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission August 24, 2006 CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: September 5, 2006 To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission From: Debra Kurita Executive Director Re: Appeal of Determination that Applicants are Not Eligible to Purchase a Below Market Rate Home at Bayport BACKGROUND In compliance with California Redevelopment Law, Warmington Homes, the developer of the Bayport community, is contractually obligated to sell 48 Below Market Rate (BMR) units to moderate - income households. Warmington Homes has named the BMR units Bayport Landing. In a separate affordable housing effort, Resources for Community Development (RCD), a non - profit housing developer, has constructed ten for -sale homes within the Housing Authority -owned Breakers at Bayport project. In both cases, the developer (Warmington or RCD) is responsible for delivering, identifying, processing and qualifying the households eligible to purchase these homes, and the sole role of the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda (CIC) is to confirm that the identified households are eligible under the guidelines of the affordable housing program. Warmington Homes and RCD have both contracted with the Alameda Development Corporation (ADC) to manage the buyer selection process for the BMR units. In December 2005, ADC held a joint lottery for 26 BMR units affordable to households earning 80 -100% of Area Median Income -- 16 homes in Phase II of Bayport Landing and ten homes in the Breakers at Bayport. Mr. and Mrs. Rutledge (Applicants) participated in this lottery. On May 22, 2006, the ADC determined that Applicants were not qualified to purchase one of the available homes because their income exceeded the level of affordability prescribed by State Law. Applicants appealed to the ADC Board of Directors, who denied the Applicants' appeal on the basis of income eligibility. On July 5, 2006, the Applicants asked the Development Services Director to review their Bayport Housing Application. The Development Services Director also determined that the Applicants' income exceeds the limits for the program. The Rutledges have appealed this determination to the CIC for a final decision as described in Attachment 1. Agenda Item #1 9 -5 -06 CIC Honorable Chair and Members September 5, 2006 of the Community Improvement Commission Page 2 of 7 DISCUSSION The CIC must ensure that the purchasers of the BMR homes at Bayport are qualified purchasers whose total household income falls within the applicable percentage of area median income adjusted for family size for the program. The only relevant issue before the CIC is whether Applicants were incorrectly disqualified from purchasing a BMR home at Bayport due to the ADC's determination that their income exceeded the statutorily prescribed level of affordability. Legal Definition and Calculation of Income Applicants are determined to be qualified when their total household income falls within the applicable percentage of area median income, adjusted for household size, as defined by the current income limits for Oakland PMSA published by California HCD and the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Applicant in this case was applying as a moderate - income household, which means the total income of the household must be no more than 100% of the area median income. Total household income is calculated pursuant to the definition of "gross income" as set forth in Section 6914 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 25 Housing and Community Development, which states in part, "Gross income" shall mean the anticipated income of a person or family for the twelve -month period following the date of determination of income" per Attachment 2. Income includes: 1. Gross earnings from all members of the household over the age of 18, including overtime and bonuses; 2. Net income from operation of a business or profession; 3. Interest and dividends; 4. Periodic payments from Social Security, annuities, retirement funds, etc.; 5. Payment in lieu of earnings; 6. Public Assistance; 7. Periodic and determinable allowances such as alimony and child support; 8. Pay of a member of the Armed Forces; and 9. For net assets in excess of $5,000, actual asset income of 10% or the value, whichever is greater. ADC does not begin calculating an applicant's 12 months of projected income until it has received all current and necessary documentation to make the projection. This is the only method to determine the projected income, since it is based on actual documentation, not just the statements of the applicants, and is the standard that is uniformly applied to determine projected income for all applicants in the program. The City of Alameda provides Inclusionary Housing Program Buyer Selection Guidelines to Honorable Chair and Members September 5, 2006 of the Community Improvement Commission Page 3 of 7 developers and their agents, with an attached set of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) in order to assist them in implementing those guidelines as identified in Attachment 3. Applicants requested and were provided a copy of these guidelines on July 13, 2006. In reference to the above definition of income, the FAQs state: I need to calculate anticipated income for the twelve -month period following income determination. What should 1 use as the starting date for the twelve -month projection? • The starting date for the twelve -month projection should be the point at which you have obtained all current and necessary information needed to make .a projection, the applicant is fully committed to purchasing a unit, and the applicant has received lender approval. You should make your best estimate of anticipated annual income based on a thorough examination of information available, including discussion with the applicant. The City understands that any estimate is a snapshot from a moment in time. What happens if there's a change in circumstances before the applicant is approved by the City of Alameda, such as a new job or layoff? . The applicant must inform you of the change in circumstances. Failure to do so may result in disqualification of the applicant. Your original income projection should be updated and the new income information applied to the remainder of the twelve -month period. Rutledge Application The Rutledges submitted an application to the ADC to participate in the Bayport lottery in November 2005. They marked on their application that they were a household of four, that they were first -time homebuyers, and that they were eligible for a preference point for living or working in Alameda based on employment with "Peralta Colleges (Alameda)." Consistent with standard practice in Alameda and other jurisdictions, lottery applications are not verified prior to the lottery drawing. Based on Applicants' unverified statements, they were awarded the maximum number of preference points and were drawn in the lottery as number twelve. After attending a required first time homebuyer workshop, the Applicants met with ADC staff in January 2006 and submitted preliminary information, which showed that Applicants live in Dublin and both work full -time in Richmond. ADC continued to work with Applicants in February and March to complete their file, which contains pay stubs from November, December January and March, Verification of Employment from Applicants' full -time employer, tax returns for 2002- 2004, bank statements and credit reports. Denial Based On Income & Preference Points In the course of completing the Applicants' file, the ADC requested pay stubs from them to substantiate Mr. Rutledge's assertion that he qualified for the live /work preference point through his employment with Peralta Colleges at the College of Alameda. Mr. Honorable Chair and Members September 5, 2006 of the Community Improvement Commission Page 4 of 7 Rutledge produced a letter showing that he volunteered at the College of Alameda providing math tutoring and motivational workshops. In further investigating Mr. Rutledge's relationship to the Peralta Colleges, the ADC obtained a Verification of Employment showing that Mr. Rutledge had been teaching the Spring Semester at Merritt College, which started in January 2006, and had been paid for this instruction. Applicants did not include anticipated income from Peralta Colleges on their lottery application and have not provided pay stubs for this employment. Based on the information in the file, the ADC determined that the Applicants were not entitled to the lottery preference point for living or working in Alameda, that their income at time of lottery application in 2005 exceeded the 2005 income limits for a family of four, and that the Applicants' projected household income exceeded the 2006 income limits for a family of four. The Rutledges were told that they could appeal this determination to the ADC Board of Directors. ADC Appeal In June 2006, the ADC Board of Directors heard the Rutledge appeal. In their appeal, the applicants maintained that only information from the time of lottery application should be relevant to their income eligibility, that income from teaching at Peralta Colleges should not be counted because Mr. Rutledge did not have an assignment in Fall 2005 (despite the fact that he has taught at Peralta Colleges since 2001 and should have anticipated the income from the Spring semester) and that Applicants deserved the preference point for working in Alameda based on the workshops Mr. Rutledge conducted at the College of Alameda (for which he maintained he could have received compensation, but chose not to). The ADC Board of Directors voted to grant the preference point for the volunteer work in Alameda, but to deny the appeal on the basis of income eligibility. The calculation that the ADC used to determine the Applicants' income when denying the appeal demonstrated that, even using the most favorable assumptions possible (no more overtime and only one semester of teaching), the Applicants' 2006 projected income would still exceed the 2006 income limits for a family of four. This is not the normal method of calculating income, but was intended to underscore that the Applicants were clearly outside of the income limits for the program. As described below, the normal method of calculating income includes a projection of continued overtime and secondary employment based on the average worked per pay period as shown on recent pay stubs. Applicants were told that if they were not satisfied with this decision, they could request a review by the Development Services Department of the City of Alameda. City Review of ADC Determination On July 5, 2006, the Rutledges sent a letter to the City asking for a review of the ADC's determination that they were not income qualified to purchase one of the BMR units at Bayport. In this letter, they calculated their projected 2006 income to be $83,666.00, within the income limits for the program. They also mentioned for the first time that their household had increased from four to five members. This information had not been Honorable Chair and Members September 5, 2006 of the Community Improvement Commission Page 5 of 7 presented to the ADC in the course of processing their application or at the appeal hearing. Development Services staff sent the Applicants a letter asking for more information about this fifth household member and their income. The letter also stated, "It is possible that in the course of reviewing your application, additional information about income or household size will be required. If there is any additional relevant information that you would like to be considered, please submit it at this time." Applicants responded with a letter stating that Mrs. Rutledge became the full guardian of her sister (a legal adult) upon the death of their mother in January 2006 (Attachment 4). The sister is a full time college student at UC Berkeley and lives in the dorms. No additional information about income was submitted. On July 27, 2006, Development Services staff sent the Rutledges a letter confirming the ADC's determination that they were over - income for the program. Since Applicants did not submit any additional income information in their response to staff's request, information in the ADC file was used as the basis for this determination. In reviewing Applicants' calculated income of $83,666, staff noted that the Applicants had failed to include overtime pay in projecting their income and had also understated their income from teaching at Peralta Colleges. Factoring in this additional income resulted in projected income of $96,807.26, which exceeds the income limits for the program for a five - person household. Based on 2006 Income Limits for Oakland- Fremont HUD Metro FMR Area provided by US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), a five - person household would need to earn between $71,550 and $90,500 per year to qualify for the program. Current Appeal On August 7, 2006, the Applicants filed an appeal to the CIC with the City Clerk's office. The Applicants request a recalculation of income based on "an accurate average of overtime and the option not to work any additional hours in overtime and /or receive additional pay for possible employment at any institution besides the primary place of work." In their appeal, they provide more recent pay stubs, which show that Mr. Rutledge has continued to work from 0 to 22 hours of overtime per pay period. Based on the additional information, Mr. Rutledge's average overtime per pay period for 2006 is approximately 12 hours, or $426.47. Mr. Rutledge provided a letter from his employer stating that overtime is not guaranteed, but this letter does not state that the overtime worked so far this year is an anomaly and that there would no longer be any overtime available in the future. Therefore, the CIC cannot assume that Mr. Rutledge will work no more overtime. As stated in staffs review, anticipated overtime is projected using the average amount earned per pay period based on recent pay stubs. This is the standard that is applied to all applications, and the Applicants' application cannot be treated differently from all the other applications received by the ADC. Likewise, the CIC cannot ignore income from teaching at Peralta Colleges based on the statement that Mr. Rutledge "can opt not to teach and will do so if necessary." Mr. Rutledge has been regularly employed by Peralta Colleges since 2001, has already taught two semesters in 2006 and is listed as an instructor for the Fall Semester at Laney College. The Honorable Chair and Members September 5, 2006 of the Community Improvement Commission Page 6 of 7 projection of one full semester (18 weeks) and one summer semester (6 weeks) in the 12 month - period is therefore very conservative. Based on the information submitted, the Applicants projected income is calculated at $95,537.01 (Attachment 5), which still exceeds the program limits for a five - person household. In addition, the Applicants have not shown that the determination made by the ADC in May was incorrect. Based on the information available to the ADC and to Development Services staff reviewing the Applicants' file, they were correctly determined to be over - income. The Applicants' appeal should be denied on the following grounds: . Applicants' anticipated income for 2006 based on available information at the time of income determination was above the income limit for the program. • Applicants' anticipated income for 2006 based on new information submitted with this appeal is above the income limit for the program. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FISCAL IMPACT There is no impact on the General Fund. RECOMMENDATION Deny the Applicants' appeal of determination that the Applicants are not qualified to buy a Below Market Rate unit at Bayport. Re • pe;' ully submitted Les ie A. Little Development Services Director By: Dorene E. Soto Manager, Business Development Division Rachel Silver Development Manager, Housing DK/LAL /DES /RS:ry Honorable Chair and Members September 5, 2006 of the Community Improvement Commission Page 7 of 7 Attachments on file in City Clerk's Office: 1. Duane & Jesusita Rutledge's appeal packet 2. California Code of Regulations — Title 25 Housing and Community Development Selected Sections 3. July 13, 2006 letter to Duane Rutledge — Inclusionary Housing Program Buyer Selection Guidelines 4. Letter from Jesusita Rutledge regarding assuming full guardianship of sister 5. Income Projection Statement cc: Duane and Jesusita Rutledge WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, Proclamation in 2003, Council adopted legislation for the creation of special newsrack districts in Alameda, which provides for the strategic placement of uniform newsracks in pedmounts in designated areas of Alameda; and in 2005, special newsrack districts were created in both the Park Street and the West Alameda Business Districts to compliment the streetscape projects in each district; and the implementation of each Special Newsrack District has involved the physical placement of approximately 20 pedmounts in the Districts and the removal of hundreds of mismatched newsrack boxes; and Contra Costa Newspapers of Walnut Creek partnered with the City of Alameda and the Business Districts by receiving the racks from vendors, carrying the racks to Alameda, installing the pedmounts and loading the racks therein, and then removing mismatched newsracks from within the Special Districts; and WHEREAS, the installation work of Contra Costa Newspapers has been carried out with exemplary good attitude and skill by its employees, in particular, Mr. Gary Kidwell and Mr. Michael Switzer, at no cost to the City; and WHEREAS, the new pedmounts are attractive and support the overall revitalization of both business districts and exist today in large part thanks to the good work of the Contra Costa Newspapers and its employees, Mr. Gary Kidwell and Mr. Michael Switzer. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that we, the Mayor and City Council of the City of Alameda, do hereby express our thanks to Contra Costa Newspapers and its employees, Mr. Gary Kidwell and Mr. Michael Switzer, PG &E, Alameda Power & Telecom, and to all those who participated in the relocation of the gas and electric lines and and proclaim September 5, 2006 as Gary Kidwell and Michael Switzer Appreciation Day in the City of Alameda, and urge the citizens of Alameda to join us in thanking each for their contribution to the revitalization of the Park Street and West Alameda Business Districts. Vice Mayor Marie Gilmore Councilmember Tony Daysog Mayor Beverly J. Johnson Councilmember Doug deHaan Councilmember Frank Matarrese Agenda Item #3 -A 9 -5 -06 3\ Proclamation Whereas, commodious, sumptuous, and artistic dwellings abound in Alameda; and Whereas, in these vintage abodes, the heritage of our community is preserved and cherished by homeowners recycling history; and Whereas, the Alameda Legacy Home Tour committee is proud to declare that eight residences and one church of historic persuasion will be open; and Whereas, such event will benefit the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society and the Alameda Museum; and Whereas, the Alameda Legacy Horne Tour is graciously sponsored by The Perforce Software Foundation of Alameda; and Whereas, Home Tour guests come from places near and far to marvel at the delectable architecture, thereby bringing commerce to our town. Now therefore, I, Beverly J. Johnson, Mayor of the City of Alameda, hereby proclaim Sunday, September 17, 2006, as Alameda Legacy Home Tour Day in Alameda and encourage residents to come and experience the Alameda Legacy Home Tour. Lii=ak Beverly J. Johnson Mayor Agenda Item #3 -B 9 -5 -06 ■111•11=111! All CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: September 5, 2006 Re: New Main Library Project Update Attached to this memorandum is the September 1, 2006 Library Construction Report. Attachment Respectfully submitted, e hisaki Library Director Agenda Item #3 -D 9 -5 -06 o Construction R Ct 4 •- C) 0 N 4) E 4) 'I-4-1 4) C/1 Construction oc a) — b E 3 °T p U c° ▪ ,4 "O CA fi ill • ,.-, at 0 • ^C (1) bA a) O -c U O.. al U .--- w • cu - ct 51 •• 'd 0 U • •� U - 0 • o O O .5 O a O N - = • .2 .d U �� • +' V1 d a) p� U O b.!) - t 03 • • • U O CID 0 • r, o d 0 o Q. ijii1i. • 0 - ,sue ▪ • a at a) 0 �" O cn o O c c- • y '" N O. E �+ U U L • 0 a) O O O • a) ✓ 'c7 • ° •° • oo .� cad o "" E w E" a) o - bA c� E A 9 • E ..• . s� U "d O• m bA ,4 E :. O r. c,d �Ox• 5 ;39. 03oScdoa) -00 0 3 -' U •o • 0 0 • a) • • o ▪ o 'b .. �, • s.. s, a) •a) s O . O O W HZv• a W�Wv)wvAGaH c. ;.- • • • • • • • • • • • • • ..al • • i., 0 W-0 • •-a 0 () cn cn czt a) O • cd a O • • Library One •I.d 'C N U CA a) U 0 cn bA 0 0 • bA 'd U 0 0 0 ,s: Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 v o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O O d N O O O O O Q Ln 0 0 00 dO O O O O ,C - O) O O ,-C\100000 L O d (,: O O (() (C) O O O Cn 0 a O co 'O cO O— r- ti 000 CO NC9 r- N 3 in oo CO L ER J � •� 0 G i 3 5 O N Y Z E L L W O O O Erte.+ C o a) a) .0 L 7 c) E 70 .O 0) u_ V) O m J Q 00„),E G1 -O c L N 0) O IL a) c CO rnM c c (0 ,,2 c > > m CD O y C O N+ v) >' co c co _ IL C a) a) O CO O N (`� a) a a2 V U a , -p C W m 0 0 (0 (0 -O L ca — m 0 a) o= co Et (1 Q Q rx = v)2Uu) CO Sources c 27,383,438.00 Sources Subtotal: 20,140,739.00 Expenditures to date: 7,242,699.00 Balance Available: 0 000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O N N In (A O O� COO 0) co N c o O O c.i. ti N ti 00 "2 N-- , ti CO CO CO 0 4) 0) (0 L 0 w L 0) O 0 0 G: \Library\New Main Library FS 05- 06.xls UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- - AUGUST 15, 2006- -5:30 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 5:40 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 4. Absent: Councilmember Daysog - 1. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (06- ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure to litigation (54956.9); Number of cases: Two. (06- ) Conference with Property Negotiator; Property: 1150 Ballena Boulevard; Negotiating parties: City of Alameda and Mission Valley Properties, dba Ballena Shores LLC; Under negotiation: Price and terms. (06- ) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency negotiators: Craig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee organizations: Alameda City Employees Association, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Management and Confidential Employees Association, and Executive Management Group. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Conference with Legal Counsel, Council was briefed on the disputes and provided instructions to staff; regarding Conference with Property Negotiator, staff provided information on the status of proposed terms of negotiations, and Council provided instructions to staff; regarding Conference with Labor Negotiators, the labor negotiator explained the status of proposals involving Alameda City Employees Association, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and Management and Confidential Employees Association, and Council gave parameters for subsequent negotiating sessions. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council August 15, 2006 UNAPPROVED MINUTES MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- - AUGUST 15, 2006- -7:30 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:44 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5. [Note: Councilmember Daysog arrived at 7:45 p.m.] Absent: None. AGENDA CHANGES None. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS (06- ) Proclamation declaring the week of August 13 -19, 2006 as Farmers' Market Week. Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Allen Moy, Assistant Director of the Pacific Coast Farmers' Market Association, and Ed Clark, President of the West Alameda Business Association (WABA). Mr. Moy thanked Council for the proclamation and on -going support. Mr. Clark stated WABA is delighted with the Farmers' Market; invited Council to the Peanut Butter and Jam Festival in September. Mayor Johnson stated people appreciate that the Farmers' Market is open in the evenings on Thursdays. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Note: Vice Mayor Gilmore abstained from voting on the Special Joint City Council and Social Service Human Relations Board minutes.] [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by as asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] ( *06- ) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Community Regular Meeting Alameda City Council August 15, 2006 1 Improvement Commission (CIC) Meeting held on July 26, 2006; the Special Joint City Council and Social Service Human Relations Board held on July 27, 2006; the Regular City Council Meeting held on August 1, 2006; and the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, CIC and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners Meeting held on August 2, 2006. Approved. [Note: Vice Mayor Gilmore abstained from voting on the Special Joint City Council and Social Service Human Relations Board minutes.] ( *06- ) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,857,231.92. ( *06- ) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Investment Report for the period ending June 30, 2006. Accepted. ( *06- ) Recommendation to adopt specifications and authorize Request for Bids for a cleaning service for the Police Administration Building for Fiscal Year 2006 -2007 and 2007 -2008. Accepted. ( *06- ) Recommendation to enter into an extension of the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (Amendment No. 1) with Ballena Isle Marina L.P. and Ballena Shores LLC. Accepted. ( *06- ) Recommendation to accept the work of SpenCon Construction, Inc. for Repair of Portland Cement Concrete Sidewalk, Curb, Gutter, Driveway and Minor Street Patching Phase 6, Fiscal Year 2005 -2006, No. P.W. 07- 05 -06. Accepted. ( *06- ) Resolution No. 14005, " Authorizing the Purchase of One New Fire Engine Using the City of Bakersfield Fire Department's Competitive Bid Award." Adopted; and ( *06- A) Recommendation to approve a Purchase Agreement with Pierce Manufacturing Inc. to Include Equipment in the Amount of $393,393.13. Accepted. ( *06- ) Introduction of Ordinance Approving and Authorizing the Lease of City -Owned Property at 3367 Fernside Boulevard to Arthur M. Jawad and Julia Jawad. Introduced. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (06- ) Recommendation to rename Tinker Avenue to Willie Stargell Avenue. The Planner III provided a brief presentation. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council August 15, 2006 2 Nick Cabral, Alameda, stated renaming Tinker Avenue has been a long time coming and will be a fresh start for the West End. Don Petersen, Alameda, stated that he supports the staff recommendation; noted that Wilver is the correct first name; recommended using the name Wilver "Willie" Stargell. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he liked the idea of using both the given name and famous name; inquired whether Councilmember Daysog would support the idea. Councilmember Daysog responded in the affirmative; stated all the hard work should be attributed to the Encinal High School Alumni Association. Councilmember deHaan stated he had the privilege of attending school with Willie Stargell; he is pleased to have such a fine person representing Alameda's gateway. Mayor Johnson stated the correct spelling of the given name should be verified; she liked the idea of using the given name and famous name. Henry "Nick" Evans, Alameda, commended Council for honoring one of Alameda's greats. Councilmember Daysog stated that everything written indicates that Willie Stargell was a great baseball player and humanitarian; Alameda owes a great amount of gratitude to Willie Stargell; other young players are carrying on the tradition. Mr. Cabral stated Willie Stargell gave stars out every time he hit a homerun; suggested placing a star before and after his name. Councilmember deHaan stated Willie Stargell had the nickname "Pops" which indicated how his fellow teammates felt about him; Willie Stargell was involved with a Sickle Cell Anemia campaign. Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation with direction to use the name Wilver "Willie" Stargell and place a star before and after the name. Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (06- ) Ordinance No. 2949, "Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Deleting Section 2- 63.10, Third Party Claims, and by Adding a New Section 2 -65, Disposition of Property Consisting of Sections 2- Regular Meeting Alameda City Council August 15, 2006 3 65.1 through 2 -65.5, to Article V, Administrative Policies and Procedures." Finally passed. Councilmember Matarrese moved final passage of the ordinance. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (06- ) Ordinance No. 2950, "Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Article XVIII Earthquake Hazard Reduction in Existing Wood Frame One and Two Story Residential Structures to Chapter XIII (Building and Housing)." Finally passed. Councilmember Matarrese stated a lower fee was discussed for smaller scaled projects; inquired how the $150 flat fee was chosen. The Building Official responded that he reviewed two to three years of permit history and did not find any seismic retrofit projects for less than $150; stated a minimum permit fee would be used for projects less than $150. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the minimum permit fee is incorporated in the ordinance, to which the Building Official responded the minimum permit fee is incorporated in the Master Fee Schedule. Councilmember deHaan moved final passage of the ordinance. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA None. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (06- ) Discussion of the U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. Mayor Johnson stated that a number of cities have signed on to the agreement; the matter should come to Council for approval. Herb Behrstock, Alamedans for Climate Protection, stated he is in favor of the agreement; the City has been doing great work to continue keeping Alameda in the lead on climate protection; the initiative helps take Alameda to the next level; 275 cities have endorsed the resolution, which represents approximately 40 million Regular Meeting Alameda City Council August 15, 2006 4 people; the resolution outlines twelve different areas to reduce greenhouse gas. emissions. Mayor Johnson requested that the item be placed on a future agenda for Council action. (06- ) Selection of two Councilmembers to serve on the Oakland Alameda Ad Hoc Liaison Development Impact Committee. Mayor Johnson stated that the cities of Oakland and Alameda agreed to form the committee; Oakland Council President De La Fuente and District Two Member Keringhan would serve; she was informed that she should serve; Councilmember Matarrese indicated that he is interested in serving. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated since the Oakland Council President is serving; Mayor Johnson should serve. Councilmember deHaan moved approval of Mayor Johnson and Councilmember Matarrese serving on the Oakland Alameda Ad Hoc Liaison Development Impact Committee. Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (06- ) Councilmember Matarrese requested an update on the Planning Department staffing levels and permit process improvement plans. (06- ) Councilmember Matarrese stated the bus shelters on Santa Clara Avenue at Willow Street and Walnut Avenue have taken a beating; graffiti abatement has clouded the plastic roofing; requested looking into correcting the condition of the bus shelters. (06- ) Councilmember Matarrese stated the City had a favorable ruling on the Beltline; thanked everyone involved; stated the City has approximately $1 million in open space funds; suggested the $1 million be used to set up an escrow account as an added sign that the City is serious about having the land as open space; everything should be done to push the process to acquire the property; residents voted to have open space on the property in 2002. (06- ) Councilmember deHaan stated that he hopes that performance indicators are still being done on permitting and inspection processes. (06- ) Councilmember deHaan stated the City would be remiss in Regular Meeting Alameda City Council August 15, 2006 5 overlooking Jean Sweeney's efforts with the Beltline matter; commended the legal team for defending the Beltline property. (06- ) Councilmember Daysog requesting looking into replacing the three old flags coming into Alameda through the Tube. (06- ) Mayor Johnson stated Jean Sweeney did a great job in tracking down the Beltline Contract; she hopes that better contract tracking has been implemented within the City. (06- ) Mayor Johnson stated the Coast Guard Island ball field would be a good facility to add to the City's inventory; the City uses the Coast Guard field for soccer already; suggested the Coast Guard be approached to determine whether the City could use the ball field for other uses; stated the City could contribute to some improvements. The City Manager stated the Recreation and Park Director has had some discussions with the Coast Guard and is working on expanding the use beyond the soccer. Mayor Johnson stated people from the softball associations have mentioned that the Coast Guard field would be the best field for college exhibition games. (06- ) Mayor Johnson stated the City has been reviewing the need for additional senior housing over the years; requested that the Housing Authority Executive Director provide an update to Council and the public regarding adding senior housing to the City's inventory. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Regular Meeting at 8:15p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council August 15, 2006 6 August 31, 2006 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers: This is to certify that the claims listed on the check register and shown below have been approved by the proper officials and, in my opinion, represent fair and just charges against the City in accordance with their respective amounts as indicated thereon. Check Numbers 151188 - 151835 E15390 - E15514 EFT 240 EFT 241 EFT 242 EFT 243 EFT 244 EFT 245 Void Checks: 150808 150599 149380 151619 GRAND TOTAL Respectfully submitted, At(111._. Pamela J. Sibl Council Warrants 09/05/06 Amount 3,467,624.88 77,488.87 27,485.97 1, 332, 778.00 5,784.90 12,943.50 87, 567.62 79,246.20 (25.00) (346.56) (160.00) (42,734.20) 5,047,654.18 BILLS #4 -B 09/05/06 CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum Date: September 5, 2006 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: Debra Kurita City Manager Re: Quarterly Sales Tax Report For the Period Ending March 31, 2006 BACKGROUND This report presents an analysis of the sales tax transactions for the City of Alameda during January to March 30, 2006. These tax transactions are the basis for sales tax revenues received during the April to June 30, 2006 time period. These transactions and resulting revenues occurred within the context of a state economy that continues to grow but at a slower pace than previously. During this period, the Bay Area experienced 5.8 percent growth while statewide growth was 5.9 percent. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS Quarterly sales tax revenues increased by 11 percent as compared to the same quarter of the prior year. This represents $123,500 in sales tax revenues, the result of increased payments to the State Board of Equalization by permit holders. The sales transactions on which these revenues are based decreased by 3.6 percent or $45,000 from the same quarter of the prior year. The key gains were in the construction group (25 percent or $12,000). The greatest decline was experienced in business -to- business ( -14 percent or $40,000). The top 25 businesses represent 48 percent ($564,000) of the quarter's sales transactions. The top 100 businesses represent 75 percent ($898,000) of the quarter's sales transactions. Agenda Item #4 -C CC 9 -5 -06 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers A comparison of the key economic categories follows: September 5, 2006 Page 2 of 3 The transportation category, while declining industry-wide, experienced increases in service station sales and used auto sales. Construction experienced its greatest increase in the retail building materials category. The business -to- business category, historically the better performer, experienced declines of 39 percent in the office equipment group but 63 percent gains in the Tight industry group. The general retail category had 12 percent gains in department store sales offset by 33 percent declines in apparel store sales. This first quarter's transactions were, in total, the lowest in four years. Total Sales Transactions 1st Quarter 2006 1st Quarter 2005 Percent Change Economic Category Total Percent of Total Total Percent of Total (3.8)% Transportation $358,572 29.9% $372,679 30.0% (4.7)% Food Products $302,982 25.3% $289,408 23.3% (6.1)% General Retail $225,290 18.8% $239,912 19.3% (14.3)% Business -to- Business $241,827 20.2% $282,168 22.7% 25.3 Construction $61,380 5.1% $48,973 3.9% (18.8)% Miscellaneous $7,526 0.6% $9,268 0.7% (3.6)% Total - Quarter $1,197,577 $1,243,428 The transportation category, while declining industry-wide, experienced increases in service station sales and used auto sales. Construction experienced its greatest increase in the retail building materials category. The business -to- business category, historically the better performer, experienced declines of 39 percent in the office equipment group but 63 percent gains in the Tight industry group. The general retail category had 12 percent gains in department store sales offset by 33 percent declines in apparel store sales. This first quarter's transactions were, in total, the lowest in four years. Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers September 5, 2006 Page 3 of 3 A comparison of the geographic generation of sales tax for the first quarter of 2006 as compared to the same period in 2005 follows: Percent Change Total Sales Transactions Geographic Areas 1st Qtr 2006 Total Percent of Total 1st Qtr 2005 Total Percent of Total (6.3)% Park — North of Lincoln $253,497 22.3% $270,499 21.8% 0.31 % Park — South of Lincoln $136,739 12.02% $136,315 11.0% (6.8)% Alameda Towne Centre $204,955 18.02 $219,936 17.7% 8.35% Webster — North of Lincoln $72,908 6.41 % $67,287 5.4% (7.3)% Webster — South of Lincoln $27,826 2.45 $30,006 2.4% (3.2)% All Other Areas $501,650 38.8% $518,385 41.7% (3.6)% Total - Quarter $1,197,577 $1,242,428 It is important to note that Alameda Towne Centre continued to have major construction work in progress during this time period. According to the UCLA Anderson forecast, consumers appear to be growing less confident about the economy. They are concerned about gas prices, inflation, rising interest rates and their jobs. In general, they are more selective about how they spend their money. BUDGET /FISCAL IMPACT The final sales tax revenues appear to be under the forecast by $321,000, which represents 6.5 percent of the forecast. However, in total, the General Fund revenues exceeded estimates by approximately $1 million. We will continue to monitor this revenue closely in Fiscal Year 2006 -2007. Honorable Mayor and September 5, 2006 Councilmembers RECOMMENDATION Page 4 of 4 Accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report for the period ending March 31, 2006. J B/d l Respectfully submitted, elle -Ann B: yer Chief Financial Officer CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: September 5, 2006 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: Debra Kurita City Manager Re: Recommendation to Amend the Consultant Agreement with Consolidated Construction Management (CCM) for the Alameda Free Library, New Main Library Project, No. P.W. 01- 03 -01, Extending the Term, Scope of Work, and Price BACKGROUND On December 2, 2002, the City was awarded a State Library Grant for $15,487,952 for construction of a new library. Alameda voters previously approved Measure 0 in the amount of $10,600,000, which provided matching funds for the project and improvements to the branch libraries. On May 20, 2003, Council approved an agreement to retain Consolidated Construction Management (CCM) as the construction management firm to oversee the design and construction phases of this project. On June 7, 2005, Council approved the first amendment to the contract extending the term, scope of work and price to match the actual construction period. DISCUSSION CCM has supported the new main library project beginning with design development process, including meeting extensively with the Library Building Team, assisting with the drafting of specifications, constructibility reviews of final construction documents, value engineering input, LEED analysis and contract negotiation. The scope of work for the original contract projected a twelve -month course of construction. The architect revised the estimated course of construction in April 2004 to eighteen - months effectively adding six months to CCM's original contract. In an effort to conserve financial resources at the beginning of construction, staff reduced a significant portion of CCM's first amendment proposal with the contract terminating on July 31, 2006. Because of careful budgetary control, the first amendment has been able to fully fund the contract through the end of August 2006. As we approach the end of the project, the need for additional work has become apparent including coordination of furniture, information technology and move contracts. In addition, CCM has taken the lead role in the LEED certification process, which cannot be completed until after the completion of construction. Agenda Item #4 -D CC 9 -5 -06 Honorable Mayor and Page 2 Councilmembers September 5, 2006 To date, the work and cooperation of CCM has been of high quality and staff recommends using this consultant for the additional work. The current contract limit is $825,211.30 of which $42,169.10 is remaining. The proposed additional cost for extending the time period through December 2006, providing furniture, fixtures and equipment procurement, library move coordination, contract close -out, and LEED certification services is $129,987. This will result in a new contract limit of $955,198.30 that is still below the industry standard of five percent for construction management services. Staff requests authorization for the City Manager to execute the second amendment to agreement with CCM. The contract is on file in the City Clerk's office. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL ANALYSIS This project is identified as CIP 02 -37 with a total budget of $15.6M (State Grant and Measure 0 Funds) allocated for construction. Funds to pay for this expected contract extension and additional work are already included in the construction management line item. There will be no impact to the project's contingency funding by this amendment. RECOMMENDATION Amend the agreement with Consolidated Construction Management for the Alameda Free Library, New Main Library Project, No. P.W. 01- 03 -01, extending the term, scope of work and price. Respectfully submitted, David Brandt Assistant ity Manag By: Robert G. Haun Project Manager PB/RH:ms cc: Library Director CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: September 5, 2006 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: Debra Kurita City Manager Re: Recommendation to Reject All Bids and Adopt a Resolution Authorizing Open Market Negotiation of Contract Pursuant to Section 3 -15 of the Alameda City Charter for the Modular Recreational Building and Site Improvements at Washington Park, No. P.W. 05 -06- 17, and Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into Such an Agreement for $650,000, Including a 10% Contingency (Requires Four Affirmative Votes) BACKGROUND In the 1990's the original Washington Park recreation building was destroyed by fire. Since funding was not available to replace the structure, a temporary modular unit was installed. In February 2006, the temporary building, which had exceeded its useful life, was removed in anticipation of the construction of a new permanent modular building. This new building will be placed in the same location as the temporary unit. On February 27, 2006, the Washington Park Modular Building Project was approved by the Planning Board with requirements to enhance the exterior walls of the modular buildings and provide an arbor and additional landscape improvements. On June 20, 2006, City Council authorized a call for bids for Modular Recreational Building and Site Improvements at Washington Park, No. P.W. 05- 06 -17. DISCUSSION To solicit the maximum number of bids and the most competitive price, specifications were provided to 18 separate building exchanges throughout the Bay Area. In addition, a notice of bid was published in the Alameda Journal and the bids were opened on July 25, 2006. Bidders from lowest to highest for total project cost is as follows: Bidder Location Bid Amount Design Space Modular Building Vacaville, CA $658,143 Design Mobile System Industries, Inc. Patterson, CA $716,567 Both bids exceed the engineer's estimate of $538,784 and the available Proposition 12 funding. The Proposition 12 funds must be expensed and invoiced by March 2007 or the funding will be reclaimed by the State. Agenda Item #4 -E CC 9 -5 -06 Honorable Mayor and Page 2 Councilmembers September 5, 2006 Staff compared the two bids with the engineer's estimate and determined that the higher bid amounts were the result of escalation in material costs, the requirement to off -haul excess excavated material and the implementation of Planning Board requirements. The City has $435,467 of Proposition 12 funds allocated for the Washington Park project and $421,866 of Proposition 40 funds budgeted for a modular structure at Krusi Park. Since the current bid amounts exceed the budgeted funding of $435,467 in Proposition 12 funds, awarding a contract at this amount will require the use of Proposition 40 funds, affecting the City's ability to replace the Krusi Park structure. Typically when bids exceed available funds, staff requests Council to reject all bids, direct staff to reduce the project scope to match available funds and re -bid the revised project. However, the additional time required to revise and to re -bid the Washington Park project would exceed the Proposition 12 funding deadline and funds will be forfeited. There is no possibility of an extension for this funding. In addition, only one of the bidders, Design Mobile System Industries, Inc., has received the Office of the State Architect approval for the modular building they propose to construct. Although the modular buildings submitted by the second bidder, Design Space Modular Building, would most likely meet the State Architect's approval, it is estimated, based on past experience, that it would take a minimum of three months to obtain such approval. The extra three months would also preclude the project from meeting the Proposition 12 deadline of March 2007. If Design Space Modular Building can provide another building that has already received the State Architect's approval, then negotiations with both contractors is possible. In accordance with Section 3 -15 of the Alameda City Charter, staff requests Council authorization to negotiate a reduction in the scope of work for the Washington Park project so that the Proposition 12 funds for the Washington Park project will not be lost and to minimize the reduction of Proposition 40 funds for the Krusi Park project. The Charter allows the Council, by a super majority vote, to determine that an open market purchase through negotiations with a contractor is appropriate due to a great necessity or emergency that requires immediate action. A delay in negotiating a change in the scope of work or a delay in awarding the contract after the drawings are approved by the State Architect constitutes a great necessity because it would result in a loss of $435,467 in Proposition 12 grant funding and further stall the completion of buildings on sites that have significant public and recreational usage. A theoretical re- design and re -bid process would also require a minimum of four months of delay, exposing the budget to possible further labor and material cost escalations without a guarantee that the re -bid would successfully reduce the cost of the project. Staff anticipates that the open market negotiations would result in modifications to material requirements, including changing copper pipe to plastic, reducing the amount of asphalt concrete installed, providing a disposal site for excavated material closer to the project, and deferring the landscape enhancements required by the Planning Board. Although the scope of work for the Washington Park building will be modified, all City standards will be met. The only Planning Board requirement to be deferred will be the landscape improvements which can be completed as a future capital improvement project using a different funding source. Honorable Mayor and Page 3 Councilmembers September 5, 2006 Once staff has concluded negotiations and determined the final construction cost for the Washington Park building, we will provide Council with a report identifying the amount of Proposition 40 funds reallocated, the impact to the Krusi Park project and recommendations for using the remaining Proposition 40 funds, including constructing a smaller building at Krusi Park. ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE The project is Categorically Exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act Section 15303, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL ANALYSIS The project will be funded from a grant under CIP# 02 -11 using up to $435,467 in Proposition 12 revenues, with any remainder of the project funded by $421,866 in State grant revenues from Proposition 40. Proposition 12 funding must be spent by March 2007 or the funds will be forfeited. MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE This action does not affect the Municipal Code. RECOMMENDATION Reject all bids and authorize open market negotiation of contract pursuant to Section 3 -15 of the Alameda City Charter for the Modular Recreational Building and Site Improvements at Washington Park, No. P.W. 05- 06 -17, and authorize the City Manager to enter into such agreement for $650,000, including a 10% Contingency (requires four affirmative votes). Respectfiv .13/ submitted, Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director MTN:BH:gc cc: Recreation & Park Director G: \pubworks \pwadmin\ COUNCIL \2006\090506 \washingtontrailer - matt.doc Prepared by, Barbara Hawkins City Engineer CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. AUTHORIZING OPEN MARKET NEGOTIATION OF CONTRACT PURSUANT TO SECTION 3 -15 OF THE ALAMEDA CITY CHARTER FOR THE MODULAR RECREATIONAL BUILDING AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS AT WASHINGTON PARK, NO. P.W. 05- 06 -17, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO SUCH AN AGREEMENT FOR $650,000, INCLUDING A 10% CONTINGENCY (REQUIRES FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES) WHEREAS, on June 20, 2006, City Council authorized a call for bids for Modular Recreational Building and Site Improvements at Washington Park, No. P.W. 05- 06 -17; and WHEREAS, on July 25, 2006 the bids were opened and both bids exceeded the engineer estimate of $538,784 and the available Proposition 12 funding; and WHEREAS, the Proposition 12 funding must be expensed and invoiced by March 2007 or the funding will be reclaimed by the State; and WHEREAS, the loss of grant funding from Proposition 12 will result in Washington Park not being replaced; and WHEREAS, negotiations with a contractor that will provide a modular building currently approved by the Office of the State Architect is required to avoid a delay in the project completion and meet the funding deadline; and WHEREAS, a reduction in the scope of work and open market negotiations is needed to meet the funding deadline; and WHEREAS, Section 3 -15 of the City Charter provides that the City Council, by four affirmative votes, can authorize an open market negotiation if it determines that great necessity or emergency requires immediate action; and WHEREAS, because any further delay will likely cost the City both by the loss of grant funding and further expenses related to the process of re- bidding without the guarantee that the project will be within the budget appropriated, the City Council finds that great necessity requires that immediate action be taken negotiate the contract for the modular recreational building and site improvements at Washington Park. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Alameda, pursuant to Section 3 -15 of the City Charter, and by four affirmative votes, the City Manager, in cooperation of the Public Works Department, is hereby authorized to enter into open negotiations of contract for the modular Resolution #4 -E CC 9 -5 -06 recreational building and site improvements at Washington Park, No. P.W. 05- 06-17, and authorizing the City Manager to enter into such an agreement for $650,000, including a 10% Contingency. I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the 5th day of September, 2006, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this 5th day of September, 2006. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: September 5, 2006 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: Debra Kurita City Manager Re: Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution Authorizing Open Market Purchase of Twelve Vehicles from Good Chevrolet, Alameda in an Amount Not to Exceed $251,230 (Requires Four Affirmative Votes) BACKGROUND On May 2, 2006, City Council adopted Resolution Number 13951 establishing guiding principles for the management of the City fleet vehicles and equipment. This resolution states that, whenever possible, local automobile dealers should be included in the bidding process for new and replacement vehicles. In addition, the policy requires that vehicle replacements consider the purchase of alternative fuel vehicles, with electric vehicles being the first choice, based on functional requirements and economic feasible. The Budget and Financial Plan for Fiscal Years 2006/2008 includes approval for the replacement of 28 vehicles, of various classifications, including ambulances, pick -up trucks, vans, etc. In the past, the City has successfully used the State of California's Commodity Contracts to purchase a portion of our fleet, including sedans, trucks and pick -ups. The state contracts are competitively bid, prices analyzed and legally executed by the state. Since the contracts leverage the state's buying power, the bid prices are usually competitive. DISCUSSION Public Works staff contacted the State Department of General Services and obtained the Commodity Contracts for all vehicles. Of the 28 vehicles identified in the City's budget for replacement, the state has competitive bid prices for 12 vehicles. The City's alternative fuel vehicle policy was considered for these 12 vehicles and based on functional requirements and availability, alternative fuel vehicles are not recommended. In accordance with Council's policy direction to purchase locally, Public Works staff also contacted the car dealerships in Alameda and requested bid prices for the same 12 vehicles, or their equivalent. Goode Chevrolet and Ron Goode Toyota provided price quotes. Ron Goode Toyota provided quotes for 5 vehicles and all quotes were greater than Good Chevrolet's. The Alameda City Charter, Section 3 -15 allows Council, by four votes, to authorize the purchase of materials or supplies in the open market when it can be purchased at a lower price. A comparison of the bid prices from the state contracts and the quotes from the local dealerships (see Table 1) indicates the City can purchase all 12 vehicles, with similar equipment, more economically from Good Chevrolet. Agenda Item #4 -F CC 9 -5 -06 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers September 5, 2006 Page 2 Table 1. Cost Comparison of 12 Vehicles Identified in Council Adopted Budget for Replacement Dept. No. Type Budget State Total Good Chevrolet Total Ron Goode Toyota Total Fire 70 Cargo Van $18,500 $18,921 $20,658 N/A Fire 75 Mid -Size Sedan $13,600 $16,775 $13,679 $21,054 Fire 78 15 -pax Van $22,900 $23,232 $23,325 N/A Park 15 1 Ton Dump Truck $47,900 $37,487 $31,913 N/A Park 10 1 Ton Dump Truck $27,200 $37,487 $31,913 N/A Park 23 3/4 Ton Pick -Up with Compartments $27,200 $24,625 $24,789 N/A Park 36 3 /4Ton Pick -Up with Compartments $27,200 $24,625 $24,789 N/A Park 77 Mini Pick -Up $12,600 $16,965 $13,222 $17,336 PW 30 Long -Bed Pick -Up $27,300 $16,965 $17,404 $19,094 PW 24 Mini Pick -Up $12,600 $16,965 $13,222 $17,336 PW 84 Mini Pick -Up $12,600 $16,965 $13,222 $17,336 PW 34 Mini Pick -Up w/ extended cab $16,400 $14,539 $15,778 $20,029 TOTAL: $266,000 $265,051 $243,912 Partial total Vehicles that are replaced are declared surplus and sold at auction. All revenues from the sale of the surplus vehicles are returned to the Vehicle Replacement Fund. Staff recommends that a 3% contingency be added to the total quote provided by Good Chevrolet to allow for potential price fluctuations. The total requested authorization of $251,230 is 5% lower than the state contract total and the available budget. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL ANALYSIS The 12 vehicles recommended for purchase in the open market are identified in the Council adopted Budget and Financial Plan for Fiscal Years 2006/2008 for replacement. The approved budget for the 12 vehicles is $266,000. The quote from Good Chevrolet is within this budget amount. MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE This action does not affect the Municipal Code. RECOMMENDATION Authorize open market purchase of twelve vehicles from Good Chevrolet, Alameda, in an amount not to exceed $251,230 (requires four affirmative votes). Respe =i. y- st�mytted Ma hew `T. Naclerio Public Works Director MTN: gc cc: Chief Financial Officer G:\ pubworks \pwadmin \COUNCIL\2006\090506 \vehicles - final - toyota.doc Approved as to Form CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. AUTHORIZING OPEN MARKET PURCHASE OF TWELVE VEHICLES FROM GOOD CHEVROLET, ALAMEDA IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $251,230 (REQUIRES FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES) WHEREAS, on May 2, 2006, City Council adopted a resolution establishing guiding principles for the management of the City fleet vehicles and equipment, which requires that, whenever possible, local auto dealers should be included in the bidding process for new and replacement vehicles; and WHEREAS, the Budget and Financial Plan for Fiscal Years 2006/2008 includes approval for the replacement of 28 vehicles, of various classifications, including ambulances, pick -up trucks, vans, etc.; and WHEREAS, in the past, the City has successfully used the State of California's Commodity Contracts to purchase a portion of our fleet, typically sedans, trucks and pick -ups and these contracts are competitively bid, prices analyzed and legally executed by the state; and WHEREAS, the current Commodity Contracts for vehicles provided to the City by the State Department of General Services includes 12 vehicles identified in the City's budget for replacement; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Council's policy direction to purchase locally, staff contacted the local car dealership, Good Chevrolet, and received bid prices for the same 12 vehicles, or their equivalent; and WHEREAS, the Alameda City Charter, Section 3 -15 allows Council, by four votes, to authorize the purchase of materials or supplies in the open market when it can be purchased at a lower price; and WHEREAS, a comparison of the bid prices from the state contracts and the quotes from Good Chevrolet indicates the City can purchase all 12 vehicles more economically through the local dealership. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Alameda, pursuant to Section 3 -15 of the City Charter, and by four affirmative votes, the City Manager, in cooperation of the Public Works Department, is hereby authorized to purchase twelve vehicles from Good Chevrolet, Alameda in an amount not exceed $251,230. Resolution #4 -F CC 9 -5 -06 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the 5th day of September, 2006, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this 5th day of September, 2006. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum DATE: September 5, 2006 TO: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Debra Kurita City Manager RE: Resolution Authorizing and Approving Sale of Emergency Generators and Associated Electrical Equipment to Cummins West, Inc. for $832,000 BACKGROUND In response to the energy crisis in 2000 and 2001, Alameda Power & Telecom (Alameda P &T) purchased four 1.5- megawatt (MW) emergency diesel generators, which meet approximately 6 percent of the City's total electric needs for a few hours on an emergency basis. The original purpose of the generator purchase was to protect Alameda citizens and businesses from rolling outages. The units were used for that purpose on two occasions for a total of four hours in 2001, but since that time Alameda P &T has not needed to use the emergency generators. At this point in time, there is very little chance of a recurrence of events such as those of the energy crisis of 2000 and 2001, and if they did recur, the evolution of the electric market, together with other operational options, diminishes, the possibilities of rolling outages in Alameda. As a result, the benefits of the revenues from the sale plus the savings from the elimination of maintenance costs outweigh the value of retaining the emergency generators. At its August 21, 2006, meeting, the Alameda Public Utilities Board approved the sale, by a vote of 3 to 1, of the four emergency diesel generators and associated electrical equipment to Cummins West, Inc. for $832,000. Pursuant to the requirement of Section 12 -3(A) of the City Charter, the sale is subject to the consent of the City Council of Alameda. DISCUSSION Since the energy crisis of 2000 and 2001, the power supply situation in California has been adequate and the electric market has stabilized. There has been no call for rolling outages and Alameda P &T has not needed to use the emergency generators. Even during the extraordinary and sustained heat wave in July, and resulting record air - conditioning loads, California's power supply system met the challenge and Alameda did not suffer any disruption of service. The likelihood of northern California returning to such the dire circumstances of 2001 is remote, and even if it did, other factors help protect Alameda from the threat of outages as discussed below. Agenda Item #4 -G CC 9 -5 -06 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers September 5, 2006 Page 2 Alameda P &T, by virtue of its membership in the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA), is part of the NCPA Metered Subsystem (MSS) Agreement with the California Independent System Operator (CAISO). The MSS Agreement specifically limits the situations under which NCPA is required to participate in load shedding. NCPA, and thus Alameda, is not required to participate in rolling outages except during major physical emergency situations where the CAISO has exhausted all other options. NCPA is not required to participate in outages when another utility' s lack of resources has created a supply shortage while NCPA has sufficient resources, the situation that occurred during the energy crisis in 2000 and 2001. NCPA and Alameda have sufficient resources to meet their respective loads and Alameda P &T has arrangements and development plans that will maintain this situation for Alameda through 2013 and beyond. The emergency generators were purchased before the MSS Agreement went into effect and, as such, were obtained under a different operational paradigm. With the MSS Agreement now in effect, the instances where Alamedans may be called upon to curtail their usage are limited and there is a low likelihood that they will occur. Another factor to take into consideration is that many of Alameda P &T's larger customers voluntarily reduced load during the 2000/2001 energy crisis to help forestall the need for mandatory outages. One large customer in particular curtailed its load a number of times during the crisis and has indicated that, if requested, will do so again, further reducing the need for the emergency generators. Over the past year, several parties have expressed interest in purchasing the emergency generator. Three offers have now been received and evaluated. The high offer is from Cummins West, Inc. of San Leandro for $832,000. Attached is Alameda P &T's Administrative Report to the Public Utilities Board on the subject that contains more detailed information and analysis on the proposed sales. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT The sale of the emergency generator units will result in $832,000 in revenue to Alameda P &T. There will also be savings of on -going expenditures including fuel, operation, and maintenance expenditures, which average about $30,000 per year, not including staff time. MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE This action does not affect the Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW There are no known negative environmental consequences from the sale of the emergency generators. Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers September 5, 2006 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION Approve, by resolution, the Public Utilities Board's action to sell the emergency generators pursuant to the requirement of Section 12 -3(A) of the City Charter that the Public Utilities Board shall have the power "To sell obsolete or unnecessary personal property, subject to the consent of the Council on all sales exceeding the sum of $10,000.00. " Respectfully submitted, Valene O. ng General Manager Alameda Power & Telecom cc: Public Utilities Board Attachment: Alameda Power & Telecom Administrative Report No. 2007 -006 ALAMEDA POWER &TELECOM A Department of the City of Alameda AGENDA ITEM NO: 6.A.1 MEETING DATE: 08/21/06 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT NO. 2007 -006 TO: Honorable Public Utilities Board Submitted bye:Y'�i '�- }• \' Donald W. Rushton Utility Planning Supervisor FROM: Nicolas Procos Approved by: Utility Analyst Valeri Genera Manager SUBJECT: Sale of Emergency Generators Recommendation: By resolution, it is recommended that the Public Utilities Board (Board) approve the sale of four emergency diesel generators and associated electrical equipment to Cummins West, Inc. for $832,000 and, pursuant to the requirement of Section 12 -3(A) of the City Charter that the sale is subject to the consent of the City Council of Alameda, authorize submittal of the proposed sale to the City Council. Background: In response to the energy crisis in 2000 and 2001, Alameda Power & Telecom (Alameda P &T) purchased four 1.5- megawatt (MW) emergency diesel generators at a cost of $1,685,935, plus tax for a total purchase amount of $1,820,809, for use during times of system emergencies and rolling outages. At the time of the purchase, the California electricity market was in a state of turmoil, and rolling outages were a very real concern. Indeed, Alameda P &T participated in rolling outages in response to direction from the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) once in 2000 and twice in early 2001, before obtaining the emergency generators. The emergency generators were purchased to offset any further requirement to curtail load. Although the situation has changed considerably since 2001, under current load shedding obligations the emergency generators could still be used to offset Alameda P &T's pro -rata share of any required demand reduction due to a system emergency and to avoid rolling outages in Alameda. However, Alameda P &T has only used the emergency generators one time, shortly after they were acquired in 2001, to respond to a CAISO mandate for load reduction to avoid a rolling outage. Since then, the units have only been operated for routine maintenance and testing (approximately 12 hours per unit per year). Even during the extraordinarily high demands recently experienced in mid -July of this year, the emergency generators were not needed. Over the past year, a number of parties have expressed interest in purchasing the units, and offers have been received from possible buyers. Staff believes that the value of retaining the units no longer Attachment Agenda Item #4 -G CC 9 -5 -06 ITEM NO: 6.A.2 Subject: Sale of Emergency Generators Date: 08/21/06 outweighs the potential revenue and savings from a sale. The right elements now appear to be in place to compel us to present this revenue opportunity to the Board. Discussion /Analysis: Need for the Emergency Generators The electricity crisis in 2000 and 2001 was precipitated by a number of factors ranging from the design of California's wholesale electricity market and manipulation of the electricity market to actual physical supply shortages and transmission limitations. The uncertainty associated with the crisis and the state of the electric market provided incentive for Alameda P &T to hedge against future uncertainty by first renting and eventually purchasing the emergency generators. Since then, the electric market has been more stable, and Alameda P &T has not needed to use the emergency generators for their intended purpose. It is staff's belief that the possibility of the "perfect storm" of events that occurred in 2000 and 2001 has little chance of reoccurring and, if they did, Alameda P &T's changed contractual situation, together with other operational options, diminishes (but does not eliminate) the possibilities of rolling outages. Status of California's Power Supply Prior to the heat wave last month, reports by the California Energy Commission (CEC) and the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) predicted that the power supply situation could be tight in southern California but would be more than adequate in northern California over the next few years. Others speculate that the addition of new generation and transmission upgrades lags population and load growth. The July situation did result in some use of interruptible loads, but the majority of outages were local and related to distribution transformer overloads and not to the capability of the bulk power supply system. Even given the extraordinary and sustained air - conditioning loads in July, the bulk power supply system met the challenge. Alameda did not suffer outages that neighboring communities experienced. While the high peak demands might cause a reexamination of the starting point for California's electric load forecast, and possibly moderate the positive outlook for the State, the system did function well. Meanwhile, other occurrences hold the promise of enhanced future reliability. For instance, Federal legislation has resulted in the creation of new reliability organizations with the purpose of enhancing mandatory reliability standards; capacity requirements are being developed to ensure that each load - serving entity provides adequate resources to serve its loads; and the appropriate allocation of transmission to load - serving entities to ensure the ability to serve load is being developed. Overall, the message is mixed, and while the near -tern situation does not appear to be of concern, no one knows what the future might bring. The question for the City now is, "Do circumstances warrant the continuing expense associated with the emergency generators ?" Metered Subsystem Agreement Alameda P &T, by virtue of its membership in the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA), is part of the NCPA Metered Subsystem (MSS) Agreement with the CAISO. While the MSS Agreement governs many functions of NCPA's interaction with the CAISO, of particular interest ITEM NO: 6.A.3 Subject: Sale of Emergency Generators Date: 08/21/06 under any circumstance be able to "lean" on the resources of other entities in the State. The MSS Agreement provides penalties if NCPA should deviate too much from its load and resource forecast outside a preset 3% deviation bandwidth. Furthermore, by establishing such a high standard, the MSS Agreement specifically limits the situations under which NCPA is required to participate in load shedding. Generally speaking, NCPA is not required to participate in rolling outages except during major physical emergency situations where the CAISO has exhausted all other options. Since the system planning criteria allow load shedding only under situations where there are two simultaneous contingencies on the system, a situation described as a 1 -in- 100 -year occurrence, staff believes the possibility of this occurring is slim. As long as NCPA has sufficient resources in place, it is not required to participate in any load shedding if the reason for the request is another utility's lack of resources. NCPA will make every effort under this scenario to assist the CAISO, but meeting its own demand will take precedence. NCPA maintains sufficient resources at all times. Alameda P &T also has sufficient energy resources to meet its load. In fact, while some of its resources are energy limited, Alameda P &T currently has more than 30 MW of excess generating capacity, not including the emergency generators. The emergency generators were purchased before the MSS Agreement went into effect and, as such, were obtained under a different operational paradigm. With the MSS Agreement now in effect, the instances where we may be called upon to reduce load are limited and, in staff's opinion, unlikely to occur. Large Customer Load Curtailment Many of Alameda P &T's larger customers voluntarily reduced load during the 2000/2001 energy crisis. One large customer which draws approximately 5 MW of load on Alameda P &T's system participated in voluntary load curtailments a number of times during the crisis and has indicated that, if requested, will do so again. While this customer is not willing to reduce this commitment to writing, Staff has worked closely over the years to develop a good relationship with the customer and we believe that their commitment to curtail their load will be honored. They would do so by running their own generators for a limited period of time during emergency situations. This would in effect satisfy, or at least mitigate, any requirement to curtail load without the need to begin rolling outages in Alameda, and reduces the need to retain the emergency generators. Offer of Purchase There has recently been a great deal of interest in purchasing the emergency generators. The good condition of the units, coupled with the apparent high demand, has led staff to believe that the timing is right to consider a sale. Three offers have now been received and evaluated. Ritchey Brothers Ritchey Brothers' (Ritchey) primary business is to provide a clearinghouse and auction for heavy equipment. Late last year, Alameda P &T asked Ritchey for an estimate of the value of the four units. In return, Alameda P &T received an offer of purchase. The offer actually consisted of three different options. ITEM NO: 6.A.4 Subject: Sale of Emergency Generators Date: 08/21/06 • Option I - Straight Auction with 10% Commission Estimated Auction Price = $800,000 Estimated AP &T Net Revenue = $720,000 (less transportation costs) • Option II - Gross Guarantee + Auction Guaranteed: $550,000 ($625,000 less 12% Commission) Auction: 80% of price over $625,000 Estimated AP &T Net Revenue = $690,000 (less transportation costs) • Option III - Straight Purchase Guaranteed AP &T Revenue = $550,000 (less transportation costs) Diesel Service and Supply Inc. During June 2006, Alameda P &T received an unsolicited offer from Diesel Service and Supply based out of Denver, Colorado. On June 14, 2006, Diesel Service and Supply provided an offer consisting of a straight purchase at a price of $720,000. On August 9, 2006, Diesel Service and Supply revised the offer to $780,000. (The purchaser would transport the units at its own cost.) Cummins West Alameda P &T also solicited an offer from Cummins West, Inc. in San Leandro. Cummins West provided the highest offer for a straight purchase at a price of $832,000. Cummins West will also transport the units at their cost. Cummins West is the exclusive distributor of Cummins Incorporated, the manufacturer of the diesel engines, for northern California. They have performed maintenance work on the emergency generators in the past. Staff recommends a sale to Cummins West. Under Section 12 -3 of the Alameda City Charter, any sale of surplus equipment with a value in excess of $10,000 requires the consent of the City Council. This item has also been agendized for the September 5, 2006, meeting of the Council, but will be pulled if the sale is not approved by the Board. Budget /Financial Considerations: Fuel, operation, and maintenance expenditures for the emergency generators are currently budgeted at $120,000 for Fiscal Year 2007. Actual expenditures have been considerably less than budgeted because the budget includes fuel expenses to cover emergency operations, which have not occurred. Actual fuel, operations, and maintenance expenditures have been about $30,000 per year. In addition, considerable staff time has been dedicated to the maintenance and operation of the units. Therefore, the sale of the units will not only result in $832,000 in revenue from the sale, but also a fairly significant reduction in on -going expenditures. It is anticipated the funds from the sale of the emergency generators will be dedicated for use in the installation of a second 12- kilovolt feeder to Coast Guard Island. ITEM NO: 6.A.5 Subject: Sale of Emergency Generators Date: 08/21/06 Exhibits: A. Resolution Authorizing the Sale of Emergency Generators B. Cummins West, Inc. Emergency Generator Purchase Proposal C. Diesel Service & Supply, Inc. Purchase Agreement D. Ritchie Bros. Auctioneers Proposal ITEM NO: 6.A.6 CITY OF ALAMEDA ALAMEDA POWER & TELECOM RESOLUTION NO. AUTHORIZING SALE OF EMERGENCY GENERATORS WHEREAS, Alameda Power & Telecom owns four 1.5- megawatt mobile emergency generators; and WHEREAS, the emergency generators are not expected to be needed for the purpose which they were acquired; and WHEREAS, Alameda Power & Telecom has received and evaluated three offers to purchase the emergency generators; and WHEREAS, Alameda Power & Telecom has determined that the value of the emergency generators does not exceed the sales price and other savings associated with selling the generators. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Public Utilities Board hereby approves the sale of the four mobile emergency generators and authorizes the General Manager to enter into the sale with Cummins West Inc. for a price of $832,000 and, pursuant to the requirement of Section 12 -3(A) of the City Charter that the sale is subject to the consent of the City Council of Alameda, authorizes the submittal of the proposed sale to the City Council of Alameda. Approved as to Form CITY ATTORNEY By: Assistant City Attorney EXHIBIT A GW1 Environment 1 Equipment I IEngines Alameda Power & Telecom 2000 Grand Street Alameda, CA 94501 Attn: Allen Hanger PURCHASE PROPOSAL ITEM NO: 6.A.7 Power Generation DATE: 7/20/06 Cummins West, Inc. is pleased to offer the following bid to purchase: A. Four (4) Used MQ Power EGC1500 diesel driven, containerized, sound attenuated, generator sets standby rated 1500 KW, 277/480 3 phase 60 Hz, 1800 RPM. The following items must be included: • Serial #'s 6048 -4 -6, 6026 -2 -7, 6026 -1 -7, 6026 -3 -7 • Unit mounted radiators • Unit mounted subbase fuel tanks • Unit mounted control panels • Purchased as is in good running condition. • 40' highway legal chassis' B. Four (4) Used 2500KVA Vantran multi -tap transformers • Serial #'s 01v5589, 01\6666-1, 01v5666-2, 01v5666-3 • 2500kva Cummins West agrees to purchase the items above for $ 832,000.00 USD Cummins West will supply crane or forklift to load transformer units onto our trucks. Cummins West will also supply the trucks to haul the four generator sets away from the site. General Comments: EXHIBIT B (Page 1 of 2) CWI Cumminswost, Ipc.. Eng[nos Environment Equipment ITEM NO: 6.A.8 Power Generation • No permit or permit costs( Fire, Building, Etc.) are included in this quotation. • We are a supplier of mater'nI, and related services, we are not a contractor. • The above proposal will be honored for 60 days. Thank you for this opportunity to purchase your used equipment.. Please call if we can be of further service. hris F •' erator Rental Manager i-i.o.fry ©cummins.com Direct Phone: (510) 347 -6677 Fax Number (510) 783 -2849 14775 Wicks Blvd. San Leandro, CA 94577 Phone (510) 351-6101 Fax (510) 347 -6191 (800) 595 -5050 Arcata, CA Redding, CA Sacramento, CA Fresno, CA Bakersfield, CA west.cummins.com (707) 822 -7390 (530) 224 -4072 (916) 371 -0630 (559) 277 -6760 (661) 325 -9404 EXHIBIT B (Page 2 of 2) ITEM NO: 6.A.9 diesel SERUM E SUPPLY IU 755 N 9TH AVENUE, BRIGHTON, COLORADO 80603 SALES tl DIESELSERVICEANDSUPPLY.COM WWW.D IESELSERVICEANDSUPPLY.COM 800 -853 -2073 • 303- 659 -2073 FAX 303- 659-7923 Purchase Agreement This Purchase Agreement (Agreement) is dated June 14, 2006 and is between Diesel Service and Supply, Inc., 755 North 9th Avenue, Brighton, Colorado 80601 (Purchaser) AND Alameda Telecom, Inc., Alameda, California (Seller) (collectively, the Parties). In consideration of the covenants contained in this Agreement the parties to this Agreement agree as follows: 1. The Seller agrees to sell to the Purchaser the following Equipment located in Alameda, California, for the total purchase price of $720,000.00: a. 4 Each Cummins 1500 kW Trailerized Units. 2. Payment Terms: Purchaser agrees to pay the Seller the suns of $720,000.00 via wire transfer or Purchaser's check overnight mailed to Seller, at Sellers discretion, on the date this Agreement is signed. The Parties understand that if this Agreement is signed after 2:00 pm, the wire transfer will post the following day. 3. Purchaser understands that the Equipment is sold AS IS /WHERE IS with no warranty, including without limitation, any warranty of fitness for a particular purpose or of merchantability. Purchaser also understands that the Equipment does include the Automatic Transfer Switch (ATS) and Transformers. 4. The Equipment is purchased F.O.B. Alameda, California and Purchaser is responsible for the deinstallation process and shipping of the Equipment and for payment of all associated costs including shipping, de- installation, loading, rigging and insurance (proof of insurance available upon request). Once deinstallation is complete, Purchaser will leave the area at and around where the Equipment is located in a clean and rentable condition. Purchaser's representative will be available the day of the completion of the de- installation process to meet with the property owner and the Seller's representative to review and inspect the area at and around where the Equipment is located. In the event the Purchaser damages the property in and /or around the area during the deinstallation and moving process, Purchaser shall be required to repair all damage and return the property to a clean and rentable condition. EXHIBIT C (Page 1 of 3) Purchase Agreement dated June 14, 2006 Between Diesel Service and Supply, Inc. and Alameda Telecom, Inc. Page Two ITEM NO: 6.A.10 5. Delivery of Equipment: Purchaser's delivery location is: 755 North 9th Avenue, Brighton, CO 80601. 6. Title: Seller warrants that: Seller is the lawful owner of the Equipment. Seller has the right to sell the Equipment to Purchaser. The Equipment is not encumbered in any manner and is free and clear of any and all liens, claims, encumbrances or security interests. The Equipment is not a leasehold improvement to the benefit of the owner of the property where the Equipment is located. Title to the Equipment will remain with the Seller until the payment in Paragraph 2 of this Agreement is received from Purchaser. When Purchaser's payment is received by Seller, Seller will immediately provide Purchaser with a bill of sale transferring Seller's right, title and ownership in the Equipment to Purchaser. 7. Delay or Failure to Perform: The Purchaser will not be liable in any way for any delay, non - delivery or default in shipment due to labor disputes, transportation shortage, delays in receipt of material, priorities, fires, accidents and other causes beyond the control of the Purchaser. If the Seller is prevented directly or indirectly, on account of any cause beyond its control, from delivering the equipment at the time or within one month after the date of this Agreement, then the Seller or Purchaser will have the right to terminate this Agreement by notice in writing to the other party to this agreement, which notice will be accompanied by full refund of all sums paid by the Purchaser pursuant to this Agreement. 8. Cancellation: Seller reserves the right to cancel this Agreement if Purchaser fails to make payment under 2. 9. Refund: Any refund of amounts to Purchaser resulting from the cancellation of this Agreement will be paid within 1 day of notification of either Party to the other Party of such cancellation. If payment of any refund amounts to Purchaser is not made in accordance with this paragraph, Purchaser will be entitled to and Seller agrees to pay to Purchaser the refund amount and any and all costs of collection including interest at 1.5% per month on all amounts due to Purchaser. 10. Upon Seller approval which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, Purchaser may assign its right or delegate its performance under this agreement. Otherwise, this Agreement cannot be modified in any way except in writing signed by the Parties. 11. By June 14, 2006, Seller agrees to contact the property owner where the Equipment is located (Premises) and inform Purchaser of any concerns that the property owner may have with respect to the de- installation of the Equipment. Purchaser, as part of the de- installation process, agrees to terminate (cut) the wiring and cap the conduit leading to the generator part of the Equipment at the generator and ATS OR at the point at which the conduit and wire enter the enclosed area that contains the Equipment, at the direction of the Seller. If Seller does not inform Purchaser of where to terminate the wiring and conduit, the Parties agree that the wiring and conduit will be terminated at the generator and ATS. If Seller informs Purchaser to terminate the wiring and conduit at the point (Point) the conduit and wiring enter the enclosed area that contains the Equipment, Purchaser will remove from the premises all wiring and conduit from the Point to the generator and ATS. The ATS will be left in the manual operating position and will not affect the EXHIBIT C (Page 2 of 3) Purchase Agreement dated June 14, 2006 Between Diesel Service and Supply, Inc. and Alameda Telecom, Inc. Page Three ITEM NO: 6.A.11 11. (Continued) the electrical service provided by public service. The wiring and conduit to the UPS will be terminated and conduit capped at the interior wall surface in the room the UPS is located. Purchaser will remove the entire generator exhaust system and generator fuel tank from the premises. 12. Seller acknowledges that once the Equipment is disconnected from the Premises no emergency power will be available to the Premises. Seller will defend and indemnify Purchaser from the claims of any person, firm, corporation or other entity resulting from the unavailability of emergency power to the Premises. 13. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the Parties and there are no other provisions implied either oral or otherwise. Any amendment to this Agreement must be mutually agreed by the Parties and be in writing. 14. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado, without regard to the principles of conflicts of laws. This instrument may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which shall be one and the same agreement. AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED, this 14th day of June, 2006 by and between: Purchaser: Seller: Diesel Service and Supply, Inc. By: Edward Vecchiarelli Alameda Telecom, Inc. By: Printed Name and Title Printed Name and Title Signature Signature Title Title EXHIBIT C (Page 3 of 3) ITEM NO: 6.A.1 2 Alameda Power & Telecom December 16th, 2005 Auction Proposal Sacramento, Ca March 7 & 8, 2005 Ritchie Bros. Auctioneers EXHIBIT D (Page 1 of 3) rb ITEM NO: 6.A.13 Option #1 Straight Commission Estimated Gross Amount Less commission of 10.0% Sub Total Less refurbishing Potential Net $ 800,000 $80,000 $720,000 $0 $720, 000 EXHIBIT D (Page 2 of 3) rb ITEM NO: 6.A.14 Option #2 Gross Guarantee Gross Guarantee Amount Less commission of 12.0% Sub Total Less refurbishing Net Guarantee Amount Potential Overage Estimated on a gross of $800,000 with the following split: 80% Overage Split Owner 20% Overage Split RBA $625,000 $75,000 $ 550,000 $0 $ 550,000 $140,000 Potential Net Amount $690,000 EXHIBIT D (Page 3 of3) Approved as to Form CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING SALE OF EMERGENCY GENERATORS AND ASSOCIATED ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT TO CUMMINS WEST, INC. FOR $832,000 WHEREAS, Alameda Power & Telecom owns four 1.5- megawatt mobile emergency diesel generators; and WHEREAS, the emergency generators are not expected to be needed for the purpose which they were acquired; and WHEREAS, Alameda Power & Telecom has determined that the value of the emergency generators does not exceed the sales price and other savings associated with selling the generators; and WHEREAS, the Alameda Public Utilities Board has authorized the sale of the four emergency generators and associated electrical equipment to Cummins West, Inc. for $832,000, subject to the requirement of Section 12 -3(A) of the City Charter that the sale is subject to the consent of the City Council of Alameda. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Alameda approves the sale of the four mobile emergency generators as authorized by the Alameda Public Utilities Board. I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2006, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said City this day of , 2006. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda Resolution #4 -G CC 9 -5 -06 CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: September 5, 2006 Re: Resolutions amending the Alameda City Employees Association Salary Schedule, the Management and Confidential Employees Association Salary Schedule and the Executive Management Compensation Plan BACKGROUND The Memorandum of Understanding for the Alameda City Employees Association (ACEA) was adopted in 2004 and covers the period July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2006. The proposed resolution establishes the hourly salary range on the ACEA salary schedule for the new classification of Transportation Coordinator. The Memorandum of Understanding for the Management and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA) was adopted in 2002 and covers the period September 9, 2002 through December 31, 2004. The proposed resolution establishes the biweekly salary range on the MCEA salary schedule for the new classifications of Principal Executive Assistant and Purchasing & Payables Coordinator and for the existing classification of Supervising Animal Control Officer. The Executive Management Compensation Plan was established by Council Resolution 13545 and amended by resolutions 13626, 13689 and 13977 for the period commencing November 1, 2002 and ending June 30, 2004. The proposed resolution establishes biweekly salary ranges for the Library Director, Recreation and Parks Director, and Deputy City Manager classifications with a five -day work week, removes the exclusivity of the Alameda Point Project Assignment for the Deputy City Manager, and adjusts benefits for the Deputy City Manager to remove provision of Auto Allowance and to reduce the Long Term Disability Insurance benefit level. DISCUSSION ACEA: The new classification of Transportation Coordinator provides for formulation, development and implementation of City and area -wide comprehensive transportation planning and policies with compensation recommended at a rate with a seven percent differential below that of Associate Civil Engineer. As this action will result in an adjustment to a currently allocated Program Specialist II Agenda Item #4 -H CC 9 -5 -06 Honorable Mayor and September 5, 2006 Councilmembers Page 2 of 4 position in the Public Works Department, there will be no increase in the number of positions allocated to the department. MCEA: The establishment of a new classification of Principal Executive Assistant is recommended in order to recognize the sensitive nature and critical importance of work performed in the City Manager's Office. This classification creates another step in the career ladder in the clerical classification series and an existing Executive Assistant position currently allocated to the department will be reclassified to the new classification. The subject action implements the classification of Purchasing & Payables Coordinator in recognition of newly assigned responsibilities and operating needs within the Finance Department. The proposed compensation for this classification is at a rate equivalent to that of a Management Analyst. This new classification, which will reclassify an existing Administrative Services Coordinator position, will be responsible for the coordination and oversight of purchasing practices including local buying when appropriate. Additionally, the Purchasing & Payables Coordinator will be responsible for supervision of the accounts payable operations. In order to address compensation incongruity between the Supervising Animal Control Officer and other positions with similar responsibilities, elevation of the Supervising Animal Control Officer classification is recommended to a level equivalent to that of other working supervisor positions. In recognition of these additional responsibilities, the incumbent in this class is currently receiving acting pay; the proposed action will formally incorporate this acting pay into the base pay for the position. As this and all the proposed changes to positions within the MCEA bargaining group are adjustments to existing positions, there are no new positions being added by this recommended action. EXME: In 1992, in lieu of a 4% salary increase, all management and confidential employees, including department heads and other executive managers, were adjusted from a five -day workweek to a four -day workweek. This proposed action for the Library Director, Recreation and Parks Director and the Deputy City Manager positions reestablishes the five -day workweek alternate classifications with resultant salaries. Further, the Deputy City Manager classification was originally established to coordinate all economic and community development related operations, including land use planning and transition of former Honorable Mayor and September 5, 2006 Councilmembers Page 3 of 4 military property to civilian use. It was later adapted for exclusive assignment to the Alameda Point Project focusing on negotiations with the Navy and property conveyance. In order to achieve efficiencies and reduce expenditures by the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, the Deputy City Manager /Alameda Point Project Manager position has remained vacant since the resignation of the incumbent earlier this calendar year. In the interim, the Assistant City Manager and the Development Services staff have dedicated the resources and staff time necessary for this project. This ongoing staff time expense will be accommodated through cost recovery from the project developer. The proposed action implements a restructuring of the City Manager's Office to accommodate this shift in responsibilities. It will modify the Deputy City Manager classification to reflect the need to provide generalist skills to address administrative and organizational issues and to support the increased dedication of the Assistant City Manager to the Alameda Point Project. The proposed action will result in a reduction in the current classification compensation and benefit structure for the Deputy City Manager. The proposed changes in the Executive Management classifications will be implemented within the current position allocations; the subject action will not add positions to the departmental personnel allocations. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT The annual cost for the Transportation Coordinator adjustment of $10,573 was included in the FY 06/07 Public Works Department budget. In terms of the proposed adjustments to the classifications within the MCEA unit, the cost for the Principal Executive Assistant adjustment, which totals $7,886 annually, will be accommodated through resources that were included in the FY 06/07 City Manager's Office budget. Additionally, the annual cost for the Purchasing & Payables Coordinator adjustment of $9,021 was included in the FY 06/07 Finance Department budget. Further, the annual cost for the Supervising Animal Control Officer adjustment of $19,059 creates no additional impact to the budget appropriations, as this expense will replace the current acting pay accommodated within the existing Police Department budget. The annual cost for the adjustments to both the Library Director and Recreation and Parks Director is $7,511 each. The cost of these adjustments will be accommodated in the current departmental budgets. Finally, as a portion of the Assistant City Manager's compensation will be offset through cost recovery from the Alameda Point Project, the restructuring of the City Manager's Office will not result in additional personnel expenditures in the General Fund allocation to the departmental budget. The proposed reclassification will create a classification with a compensation level that is less than the current Deputy City Manager and higher than the existing Assistant to the City Manager classification. The proposed adjustment in compensation and benefits will constitute a $36,617 or 25 percent reduction Honorable Mayor and September 5, 2006 Councilmembers Page 4 of 4 from the existing Deputy City Manager classification and equate to a cost that is $28,207 above the Assistant to the City Manager on an annual basis. This reorganization of the Office will result in the appropriation of one Assistant City Manager and one Deputy City Manager. RECOMMENDATION Adopt resolutions: Amending the Alameda City Employees Association (ACEA) Salary Schedule by Establishing the Salary Range for the Classification of Transportation Coordinator. Amending the Management and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA) Salary Schedule by Establishing the Salary Ranges for the Classifications of Principal Executive Assistant, Purchasing & Payables Coordinator and Supervising Animal Control Officer. Amending Exhibit A — Compensation Plan Established by Council Resolution 13545 and amended by Resolutions 13626, 13689 and 13977 to Establish a Five -Day Workweek Alternative with Corresponding Salary Ranges for the Classifications of Library Director and Recreation, Parks Director, and Deputy City Manager, Remove the Exclusivity of the Alameda Point Project Assignment for the Deputy City Manager, and Amend Section 13. Separability of Provisions. Respectfully submitted, Karen Willis Human Resources Director CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. AMENDING EXHIBIT A - COMPENSATION PLAN ESTABLISHED BY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 13545 AND AMENDED BY RESOLUTIONS 13626, 13689 AND 13977 TO ESTABLISH A FIVE -DAY WORKWEEK ALTERNATIVE WITH A CORRESPONDING SALARY RANGE FOR THE CLASSIFICATIONS OF LIBRARY DIRECTOR, RECREATION AND PARKS DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY CITY MANAGER, AND REMOVE THE EXCLUSIVITY OF THE ALAMEDA POINT PROJECT ASSIGNMENT FOR THE DEPUTY CITY MANAGER, AND AMEND SECTION 13. SEPARABILITY OF PROVISIONS WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Alameda previously adopted City of Alameda Resolution No. 13545 and amended by Resolutions 13626, 13689 AND 13977 establishing the salary and benefits for the City Clerk, Assistant City Manager, Deputy City Manager, Human Resources Director and Executive Management Team Members (who include Development Services Director, Public Works Director, Chief Financial Officer, Planning and Building Director, Executive Director of the Housing Authority, Recreation & Parks Director, General Manager of the Golf Complex, Information Technology Director, Library Director and General Manager, Alameda Power and Telecom) for the period commencing November 1, 2002 and ending June 30, 2004; and WHEREAS, staffing vacancies and changes to operational standards call for provisions to grant appropriate compensation and benefits for the five -day workweek as an alternative to the existing salary and benefits for the Library Director, Recreation and Parks Director, and Deputy City Manager Classifications, and removal of the exclusivity of the Alameda Point Project assignment for the Deputy City Manager. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA, DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: 1. Effective June 25, 2006, the Council hereby amends Exhibit A of the Executive Management Compensation Plan to City of Alameda Resolution 13545 as amended by Resolution 13626, 13689 and 13977 to grant appropriate compensation for the five - day workweek as an alternative to the existing salary for the Library Director, Recreation and Parks Director, and Deputy City Manager Classifications. 2. That the position classification, salary rates, salary range, and salary steps are hereby designated as those applicable to the respective classification in the service of the City of Alameda, originally effective November 1, 2002, as amended on March 3, 2004 and ending June 30, 2004. Effective June 25, 2005 the Council herby amends Exhibit A — Compensation Plan to City of Alameda Resolution 13545 as amended by Resolution 13626, 13689 and 13977. Resolution #4 -H (1) CC 9 -5 -06 Code Classification EXEMPT BI- WEEKLY Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 1131* Library Director $4582 $4811 $5052 $5305 $5570 1141 * Recreation and Parks Director $4582 $4811 $5052 $5305 $5570 1056* Deputy City Manager $3494 $3669 $3852 $4045 $4247 *Indicates classifications with thirty -seven and one -half (37 1/2) hour original workweek. 2. Effective June 25, 2006, the Council hereby amends Exhibit A of the Executive Management Compensation Plan to City of Alameda Resolution 13545 as amended by Resolution 13626, 13689 and 13977 to remove the exclusivity of the Alameda Point Project Assignment for the Deputy City Manager. 3. Effective June 25, 2006, the Council hereby amends Exhibit A of the Executive Management Compensation Plan to City of Alameda Resolution 13545 as amended by Resolution 13626, 13689 and 13977, Section 13. Separability of Provisions, provisions not applied to the Deputy City Manager to also include Section 10. Auto Allowance and Section 4.6 Long Term Disability Insurance. Instead the City will provide a paid for Long Term Disability Insurance plan equal to benefits provided for in the Management and Confidential Employees Association MOU. I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2006, by the following vote to wit: AYES NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said City this day of , 2006. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda Approved as to Form CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. AMENDING THE MANAGEMENT AND CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (MCEA) SALARY SCHEDULE BY ESTABLISHING SALARY RANGES FOR THE CLASSIFICATIONS OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT, PURCHASING & PAYABLES COORDINATOR AND SUPERVISING ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that the salary resolution of Management and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA) is hereby amended by establishing the salary rates, salary ranges, salary steps and benefits for the classifications of Principal Executive Assistant, Purchasing & Payables Coordinator and Supervising Animal Control Officer designating those as applicable to these classifications in the service of the City of Alameda. CITY OF ALAMEDA MANAGEMENT AND CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION Effective June 25, 2006 Code Classification EXEMPT BI- WEEKLY Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 1670* Purchasing &Payables Coordinator $2274 $2388 $2507 $2632 $2764 4090 Supervising Animal Control Officer $2507 $2632 $2764 $2902 $3047 * Indicates classifications with thirty -seven and one -half (37 1/2) hour original workweek; other classifications have forty (40) original workweek. Resolution #4 -H (2) CC 9 -5 -06 HOURLY Code Classification Step Step Step Step Step NON - EXEMPT 1 2 3 4 5 1404* Principal Executive Assistant $29.12 $30.58 $32.11 $33.72 $35.41 * Indicates classifications with thirty -seven and one -half (37 1/2) hour original workweek; other classifications have forty (40) original workweek. Resolution #4 -H (2) CC 9 -5 -06 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2006, by the following vote to wit: AYES NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said City this day of , 2006. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. AMENDING THE ALAMEDA CITY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (ACEA) SALARY SCHEDULE BY ESTABLISHING THE SALARY RANGE FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that the salary resolution of Alameda City Employees Association (ACEA) is hereby amended by establishing the salary rates, salary range, salary steps and benefits for the classification of Transportation Coordinator designating those as applicable to this classification in the service of the City of Alameda. CITY OF ALAMEDA ALAMEDA CITY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION Effective June 25, 2006 Thirty -seven and one -half (37 1/2 hour workweek. Resolution #4 -H (3) CC 9 -5 -06 HOURLY Code Classification Step Step Step Step Step Step Step Step NON - EXEMPT AA A B 1 2 3 4 5 3146* Transportation Coordinator $30.55 $32.08 $33.68 $35.36 $37.13 $38.99 $40.94 $42.99 Thirty -seven and one -half (37 1/2 hour workweek. Resolution #4 -H (3) CC 9 -5 -06 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2006, by the following vote to wit: AYES NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said City this day of , 2006. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum Date: September 5, 2006 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: Debra Kurita City Manager Re: Recommendation to Adopt Resolution Appointing Rebecca A. Kozak to the Bay Area Library and Information System (BALIS) Advisory Board BACKGROUND The Bay Area Library and Information System (BALIS) is a joint powers agency comprised of public libraries. Members include the libraries of the cities of Alameda, Berkeley, Hayward, Livermore, Oakland, Pleasanton, Richmond and San Francisco, as well as the Alameda and Contra Costa County Library systems. The California Library Services Act of 1977 requires that each cooperative library system establish a lay advisory board with a representative from each jurisdiction. The System Advisory Board (SAB) provides a way to incorporate citizen advice in the planning and delivery of System level services to the library community. State law requires the City Council to appoint the representative. Historically, this appointment has been achieved through a Council resolution. DISCUSSIONS /ANALYSIS State law requires the Advisory Board to be representative of the public -at -large and the underserved residents in the System service area. Representatives from each library jurisdiction typically are residents of the community and have a keen interest in, and understanding of, library operations. These representatives are library users who represent the library users of their jurisdiction to provide a mechanism to involve the user community in the planning and development of services, to foster communication between the administrative bodies and the users, and to ensure the cooperative's services meet the needs of its users. The representative should attend the bi- monthly System Advisory Board meetings to report on activities in the Alameda Library and to participate in the planning of regional library events. The representative should attend all meetings of the Library Board to report on BALIS activities and to seek Board input. In addition it would be ideal if the representative were active with one or more of the library support groups, such as the Friends of the Library or the Alameda Reads Literacy Program. Ms. Rebecca Kozak is a resident of Alameda. She reflects the public -at- large, she is a library user. She is nearing completion of a master's degree in Library and Information Science from San Jose State University, as Alameda's representative she would bring her knowledge of library operations to the System Advisory Board as well as gain experience working with libraries and library administrators. Ms. Kozak has discussed at great length, the responsibilities and activities Agenda Item #4 -I CC 9 -5 -06 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Page 2 September 5, 2006 of the System Advisory Board representative with the outgoing representative, Mr. Marc Lambert. She has completed her public library practicum and has volunteer experience in other libraries. Ms. Kozak was advised to apply for the System Advisory Board position using the City of Alameda Boards and Commissions application, indicating her interest in the BALIS System Advisory Board in the Other Comments section. For your information, a copy of Ms. Kozak's application is included with this report. MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE This action does not affect the Alameda Municipal Code. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT This action does not require funding. RECOMMENDATION Adopt resolution appointing Rebecca A. Kozak to the BALIS System Advisory Board. Respectfully submitted, ane Chisaki Library Director Attachment CITY OF ALAMEDA APPLICATI BOARDS /COMMISSIONS Check only ONE of the following Boards/ ommissions. If d Commission, please complete a SEPARATE form for each. r Civil Service Board * l Golf Commission [x; Library Board * r Public Art Commission * ✓ Social Service Human Relations Board * kao I, E you are interested appo " ent to more - h = n : "':' r CITY OF 4LAMEDA Commission on Dl tt i R ('S Boa OFFICE r; Housing & Building Code Hearing & Appeals Board* ✓ Planning Board * [7 Recreation and Park Commission * r Transportation Commission * *Appointees to these Boards /Commissions are required to complete a Conflict of Interest Statement. PLEASE PRINT THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: Name: Kozak Rebecca Address: A. (Last) (First) (Middle Initial) Home Telephone Business Telephone E -Mail: • rkozak @slis.sjsu.edu Occupation: executive assistant Employer: Oakland Fire Department Would decisions made by the Board /Commission conflict with your business or occupation? ( Yes �:� No If yes, please explain: List schools attended and degrees obtained Qualifying Mills College, B.A.; U.C. Berkeley, B.S. Education List prior practical experience which would qualify you for the Board /Commission Qualifying �I am near completion of a master's degree in library and information science from San Jose State University; I have completed a public library practicum, and have done other volunteer work in libraries. Experience Other Comments I am interested in the BALIS System Advisory Board position. Applications are public information. Would you like your telephone numbers & address withheld? •; Yes C- No Would you like your email address withheld? (; Yes (;.) No Nominees are subject to a background investigation. Do you agree to be subject to an Investigation? (:, Yes :;. ;� i'k:.: -,:� � „1. =.:...:'.N�::p.. Iti (Signature) (Date 0 No if File with the City Clerk, City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 380. You will be notified if appointed. Applications are valid for one year. Revised 3 -2006 FOR YOUR INFORMATION Mayor, Councihnembers City Attorney, Assistant City Mgr, Library Director Attachment Agenda Item #4 -I CC 9 -5 -06 CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. APPOINTING REBECCA A. KOZAK AS A MEMBER OF THE BAY AREA LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SYSTEM LAY ADVISORY BOARD BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that pursuant to the requirements of the California Library Services Act of 1977, and upon nomination of the Library Board of the City of Alameda, Rebecca A. Kozak is hereby appointed member to the Bay Area Library and Information System (BALIS) Lay Advisory Board for a two year term commencing September 1, 2006. I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2006, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this day of , 2006. Lara Weisiger , City Clerk City of Alameda Resolution #4 -I CC 9 -5 -06 ved as to Form CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO. New Series APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE LEASE OF CITY -OWNED PROPERTY AT 3367 FERNSIDE BLVD. TO ARTHUR M. JAWAD and JULIA JAWAD el 1 WHEREAS, the City is owner of Tidelands Trust real property at 3367 o Fernside Boulevard; and L WHEREAS, Arthur Jawad and Julia Jawad wish to enter into a lease with the City for an initial term of 25 years with a 25 -year option to extend the lease; and WHEREAS, a form of a new lease containing the covenants, terms and conditions to be entered into is attached to the staff report presented to the City Council at the August 15, 2006, City Council meeting; and WHEREAS, pursuant to City Charter section 3 -10, no real property of the City shall be leased for a period in excess of one year or sold, except upon the affirmative vote of four members of the City Council. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that: Section 1. The form of lease referred to in the preamble hereof, and the terms, conditions and covenants contained therein, be and the same are approved upon the affirmative vote of four members of the City Council. Section 2. The City Manager of the City of Alameda or his designee is hereby authorized to execute, for and on behalf of the City of Alameda, a Lease substantially in the form and containing the terms and conditions and covenants as set out in the Lease attached to the staff report presented to City Council at the August 15, 2006 City Council meeting, and the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to attest to the same. Final Passage of Ordinance #4 -J CC 9 -5 -06 Section 3. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of its final passage. Presiding Officer of the City Council Attest: Lara Weisiger, City Clerk r I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was duly and regularly adopted and passed by Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2006, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this day of , 2006. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum Date: September 5, 2006 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: Debra Kurita City Manager Re: Public Hearing to Approve the Rezoning of Property Located at 500 Maitland Drive from Open Space (0) to Community Manufacturing Planned Development (CM -PD) BACKGROUND The applicant has requested the rezoning of approximately 1.19 acres of land that was formerly owned by the City (File No. R06- 0001). Maitland Drive was realigned as part of the Cross - Island Airport Road project. The subject property was previously on the opposite side of Maitland Drive. In 2003, the City conveyed this land to the business park and amended the General Plan designation of this property from Open Space to Commercial Recreation to facilitate expansion of the adjacent recreational vehicle and self- storage facility. The property was not rezoned at that time. The applicant submitted Rezoning, Final Development Plan, Use Permit and Major Design Review applications (R06 -0001, FDP05- 0005, UP05 -0022 and DR -0062) requesting expansion of the existing recreational vehicle and self- storage facility. On July 24, 2006, the Planning Board adopted a resolution approving the Use Permit, Final Development Plan and Major Design Review recommending that the City Council approve the Rezoning. DISCUSSION The proposed expansion of the existing facility has been reviewed by staff and approved by the Planning Board. The project, as conditioned, will not adversely affect neighboring properties. No additional action by the City Council is required on the Final Development Plan, Use Permit or Major Design Review applications. The rezoning from Open Space (0) to Commercial Manufacturing Planned Development (CM -PD) does require City Council approval. The proposed rezoning to CM -PD will bring the property into conformance with the General Plan Designation and the remainder of this property which is currently zoned CM -PD. The rezoning is consistent with the well documented planned development of the business park. Additional discussion is provided in Attachment 1, the July 24, 2006 Planning Board Report. Agenda Item #4 -K CC 9 -5 -06 Honorable Mayor and September 5, 2006 Councilmembers Page 2 of 2 BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT No additional funding is necessary relating to Planning & Building activities for this project. MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE Actions taken on this subject do not affect the Alameda Municipal Code, however, the City Zoning Map will be revised to reflect the change of zoning for this property. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Potential impacts are covered by the environmental determination contained in Resolution No. 1055 for the original Harbor Bay Business Park entitlements. Pursuant to Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, no further environmental review is necessary. RECOMMENDATION Approve the Rezoning from Open Space to Commercial Manufacturing Planned Development. B Respectfully submitted, litJ� Cath / oodbury Pla ' mg Buil Rig Director Db •las arrison Supervising Planner ATTACHMENT: 1. July 24, 2006, 2006 Planning Board Report (without attachments) cc: Applicant: Harbor Bay Acquisition LLC ALAMEDA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT ITEM NO.: APPLICATION: GENERAL PLAN: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: STAFF PLANNER: RECOMMENDATION: ACRONYMS: Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of July 24, 2006 STAFF REPORT 9 -B R06 -0001, FDP05 -0005, UP05 -0022 and DR- 0062 — Harbor Bay Storage LLC -500 Maitland Drive. The applicant requests approval of Rezoning, Final Development Plan, Use Permit and Major Design Review applications allowing the expansion of an existing recreational vehicle and self - storage facility. The existing facility includes 115 recreational vehicle parking spaces, 48,510 square feet of self - storage space and a 2,100 square foot office and manager's unit. The proposed expansion would add 4.41 acres and include 70 additional recreational vehicle parking spaces and 30,756 additional square feet of self - storage space. The entire project site is designated as Commercial Recreation on the City of Alameda General Plan. The existing facility is zoned CM -PD Commercial Manufacturing — Planned Development District. A portion of the expansion area is currently zoned 0 (Open Space). The rezoning request to CM -PD Commercial Manufacturing — Planned Development District, is consistent with the General Plan and current land use patterns. Business Park Potential impacts are covered by the environmental determination contained in Resolution No. 1055 for the original Harbor Bay Business Park entitlements. Pursuant to Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, no further environmental review is necessary. Douglas Garrison, Planner III Approve the Final Development Plan, Rezoning, Use Permit and Design Review AMC— Alameda Municipal Code DRM —City of Alameda Design Review Manual FDP —Final Development Plan EIR — Environmental Impact Report PDA — Planned Development Amendment CEQA — California Environmental Quality Act Attachment #1 Agenda Item #4 -K CC 9 -5 -06 Page 1 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution for FDP05 -0005, UP05 -0022, R06 -0001 and DR05 -0062 2. Final Development and Architectural Plans 3. Parcel Map 4. Site Photographs I. PROPOSAL SUMMARY The project consists of the expansion of an existing recreational vehicle and self - storage facility, located in the Harbor Bay Business Park. The existing facility includes 115 recreational vehicle parking spaces, 48,510 square feet of self - storage space and a 2,100 square foot office and manager's unit. The proposed expansion would add 4.41 acres and include 70 additional recreational vehicle parking spaces and 30,756 additional square feet of self - storage space. New self - storage buildings will be consistent with the design and size of existing buildings. No changes or expansion of the administrative office or resident manager's unit are proposed. H. BACKGROUND A. Existing Site Conditions and Vicinity The existing facility is located on approximately five acres of land that had previously been used as a gun club, prior to the establishment of the business park. This five -acre parcel was owned by the City. The existing self - storage facility opened in October 2000 and was leased from the City. In 2003 this five -acre parcel was conveyed to the business park developer. The approximately 4.41 acre expansion area is a roughly triangular shaped property adjacent to and southwest of the existing facility. Approximately 1.19 acres of this land became available due to the re- alignment of Maitland Drive as part of the Cross - Island Airport Road project (Attachment No. 3). Originally, this land was owned by the City and was zoned Open Space (0) due to it's proximity to the adjacent Alameda Municipal Golf Course. The realignment of Maitland Drive created a small, isolated parcel, surrounded on two sides by busy thoroughfares, that has limited value as open space. Consequently, the City also conveyed this land to the business park developer, in 2003, for the purpose of expanding the existing self - storage facility. The remainder of the expansion area is privately owned land within the business park. Other existing land uses in this business park include professional offices, research facilities, warehouse and distribution, light manufacturing and private school and daycare facilities. The original facility abuts residential properties to the north. The expansion area is further away, to the south. The nearest residential properties are approximately 300 feet to the north of the expansion area. The Metropolitan Oakland International Airport property and the Alameda Municipal Golf Course is directly across Maitland Drive. The Oakland Raiders training facility is across Harbor Bay Parkway, to the south. Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of July 24, 2006 Page 2 B. Previous Approvals The site is within the Harbor Bay Business Park, a mixed -use planned development that was originally approved by Planning Board Resolution No. 1203. New projects, within the business park, require Final Development Plan, Major Design Review and in some cases Use Permit approvals by the Planning Board. In 1996, the City approved Final Development Plan FDP -95 -1, Design Review DR- 96-6 and Use Permit UP -96 -7 allowing the initial phase of the project. In 1997, Final Development Plan FDP- 97 -01, Use Permit UP -97 -06 and Design Review DR -97 -06 were approved allowing the second phase of the project. In 1999, Use Permit UP -99 -19 and DR -99 -56 were approved, allowing further expansion of the facility. In 2003, the City conveyed 1.19 acres of land to the business park and amended the General Plan designation of this property to Commercial Recreation. The impetus for the land transfer and general plan amendment was the realignment of Maitland Drive and Harbor Bay Parkway. The road realignment resulted in a small, isolated area of City land sandwiched between the self - storage facility and these busy arterial streets. General Plan Amendment GPA03- 0002 was necessary, in order to sell the property for an appropriate fair market value and to provide assurance to the buyer that the property could be developed as planned. Rezoning the property was not required at that time. In 2204, Lot Line Adjustment LLA04 -0008 merged this land with adjacent business park parcels. III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The parcel is located in an existing business park. The business park was evaluated previously in the 1974 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared by A. D. Little, certified in March 1974 and the 1988 Addendum to the EIR certified in 1989. Both documents are on file in the Planning and Building Department. The draft Resolution for this project contains findings pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15162. Under Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, no additional environmental review is required at this time. IV. ANALYSIS A. Final Development Plan The development plan for Harbor Bay Industrial Park was approved on December 1, 1981 with conditions by Planning Board Resolution No.1203. These conditions set minimum development standards for the Harbor Bay Business Park. Table 1 summarizes project compliance with applicable development standards. Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of July 24, 2006 Page 3 Table 1. Final Development Plan Compliance Summary Factor City Standard Project Compliance Setbacks CM -PD Residential Harbor Bay Parkway Maitland Drive Oft. 35 ft. 50 ft. 20 ft. 10 - 25 ft. N/A 50 - 100 ft. 20 ft. Complies Parking N/A The City does not have a parking standard for self- storage facilities Parking provided for office use and resident managers. Expansion project will not require additional parking. Complies Building Height 100 ft. 11 ft. Storage Units Complies Conclusion The expansion project will maintain the existing setbacks of the original facility along the Harbor Bay Parkway and Maitland Drive frontages. New buildings will be the same height as existing buildings. No expansion of administrative offices or residential units are proposed. Project access will remain unchanged. The proposed expansion project complies with setback, height and building coverage requirements. It is, therefore, consistent with the conditions contained in Planning Board Resolution No. 1203, the approved Development Plan for the Harbor Bay Business Park and the AMC. B. Design Review Design Standards AMC Section 30- 37.5(a) requires that projects be compatible and harmonious with the site, adjacent or neighboring buildings and surroundings and promote harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between designated land use areas. AMC Section 30- 37.5(c) notes that City staffmay rely on the principles and standards of the City Design Review Manual (DRM) in determining project consistency with AMC Design Review requirements. Additionally, Resolution No. 1203, which approved the Harbor Bay Business Park, established specific requirements as conditions of approval for the Harbor Bay Business Park. The DRM notes that project design should take into consideration the project's effect on adjacent properties and neighborhoods. The DRM provides the following guidance in achieving this objective. • Site Plan: Major design considerations are the location of open space and connection to the existing circulation system. Loading areas, maintenance facilities, trash collection equipment should be located to minimize effects to nearby buildings. • Architectural Design: Buildings should be of an appropriate design theme, sense of scale, Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of July 24, 2006 Page 4 compatible roof line and harmonious colors and materials. • Landscaping: Design should be integrated into project and provide an appropriate transition between properties. • Parking: In general, off- street parking should be located at the rear or side of the property and should be screened from the public right of way. Resolution 1203 contains the following requirements: • Condition No. 48: Provides landscaping guidance for development throughout this business park. Landscape plants are to be hardy and drought resistant. Projects are required to use a mixture of appropriately scaled setbacks, incorporating berms, planted with trees, shrubs and other ground cover, that result in a strong unifying theme along arterial streets. Discussion This proposal is an expansion of an existing facility. The new self - storage buildings will be consistent with existing self - storage buildings on the site, utilizing the same materials, construction and design. Maximum height will be eleven feet. The office and onsite manager's unit will not be expanded or changed. Site access also remains unchanged. The project includes the extension of the existing eight feet high vinyl clad chain link perimeter fencing and landscaping that currently screens the site from Harbor Bay Parkway and Maitland Drive. In areas, primarily along the Maitland Drive frontage, where perimeter landscaping has matured and extends above the fence the site is almost completely screened from public viewing areas. In other areas, where the perimeter landscaping is not as mature, the tops of some recreational vehicles are still visible above the fence. Proposed buildings are of an appropriate design theme, sense of scale, compatible roofline and harmonious colors and materials. Landscaping design is integrated into the project and provides an appropriate transition between properties. With proposed fencing and landscaping the new buildings and recreational vehicles will typically not be visible from public viewing areas and provide an appropriate transition between land uses. A condition of this permit is that, once mature, perimeter landscaping be maintained to a height of 10 feet, or as needed, to effectively screen the site from public viewing areas. Conclusion The project complies with design guidelines for landscaping and architecture contained in the Harbor Bay Master Plan, Resolution No. 1203, previous entitlements and the City's DRM. Project design minimizes visual impacts. After perimeter landscaping matures, the site will be screened from public viewing areas and be compatible and harmonious with the site, adjacent or neighboring buildings and surroundings and promote harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between designated land use areas. Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of July 24, 2006 Page 5 C. Use Permit The existing facility has been operating under valid use permits since 2000 (See Section II. B of this report for additional discussion of permit history). Earlier Use Permits allow the onsite manager's residential unit and the outdoor recreational vehicle storage area. The applicant has applied for a new Use Permit to accommodate the proposed expansion of the outdoor recreational vehicle storage area. The construction of new self - storage buildings does not require a Use Permit. The City of Alameda requires Use Permits for businesses that are, due to their location or type of use, potentially incompatible with nearby land uses. The purpose of the Use Permit is primarily to ensure that projects do not adversely affect neighboring properties. Increased noise, light and public safety are common concerns. To ensure compatibility with neighboring land uses. Section 30- 21.3(b) of the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) requires that specific findings be made when evaluating a Use Permit application. These findings are included in the attached draft resolution and are supported by evidence included in this staff report. Use Permit UP05 -0005 would allow the expansion of the existing recreational vehicle storage area. The project is located in an existing business park that includes light manufacturing and warehousing uses. It is across Maitland Drive from the Metropolitan Oakland International Airport and approximately 1,000 feet from the end of a runway. Within this context, the project is a relatively low intensity use. There are residential properties to the north of the facility, but the expansion area is 300 to 600 feet further away from the residences than the existing facility. The facility is open from 7:OOAM to 9:00 PM daily and has two employees. Self- storage units are fully contained within structures. Customers are not allowed to use these facilities as workshops or residences. No outdoor activities other than loading and unloading are allowed and no onsite dumping is allowed. The RV storage area is unenclosed. However, customers are not allowed to work on vehicles onsite or store other materials there. No expansion of operating hours or new outdoor activities are proposed. Staff visited the site and found it to be well maintained and clean. Review of City records indicates that there are no complaints or code violations. The project does not include late night operations and is a relatively low intensity use. The proposed expansion of the existing facility will be compatible with other land uses in the surrounding area and, as conditioned, it will not adversely affect neighboring properties .The project does not include changes to site access. The site is served by adequate transportation and service facilities. D. Rezoning Approximately 3.22 acres of the expansion area is currently zoned Community Manufacturing Planned Development (CM -PD). The other 1.91 acres are zoned Open Space (0). The rezoning request only affects the portion of the expansion area that is zoned O. In 2003, the City amended the General Plan (GPA03 -0002) to change the designation of the subject property from Open Space to Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of July 24, 2006 Page 6 Commercial Recreation. This action was related to the realignment of Maitland Drive as part of the Cross - Island Airport Road project and the conveyance of approximately 1.19 acres of City -owned land to the business park. The General Plan designation for the existing facility is also Commercial Recreation. This land was conveyed to the business park for the purpose of allowing future expansion of the existing Self - storage facility. The Self- storage facility was originally proposed as a phased project that would include future expansion. Although the City amended the General Plan designation from Open Space to Commercial Recreation in anticipation of the expansion of the existing facility, the property was not formally rezoned to CM- PD at that time. General Plan Amendment GPA03 -0002 was necessary, in order to sell the property for an appropriate fair market value and to provide assurance to the buyer that the property could be developed as planned. Rezoning the property was not required at that time. Consequently, the applicant has submitted the current zoning request. The proposed rezoning to CM -PD will bring the property into conformance with the General Plan Designation and the remainder of this property which is currently zoned CM -PD. The rezoning is consistent with the well documented planned development of the business park. V. RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Building Director recommends that the Planning Board approve UP05 -0022, Final Development Plan FDP05 -0005, and Design Review, DR05 -0062; and recommend to the City Council approval of Rezoning R06 -0001 based on the findings and with the conditions contained in the draft resolution. G:\PLANNING\PB\ Reports \2006\05- 22- 06\MaiUand_500 R06 -0001 FDP05 -0022 UP05 -0022 DR05- 0062.doc Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of July 24, 2006 Page 7 06 AUG 28 IJ.. 2: i' City Clerk's Office, City of Alameda City Hall 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Rm. 380 Alameda, CA 94501 RE: REZONING OF OPEN SPACE To the Alameda City Council and Alameda residents: Phil Ballou 1410 Seminary Ave Alameda, CA 94502 TEL 510 -522 -7093 Email philouba@yahoo.com August 28, 2006 Every time I take a walk in Harbor Bay Business Park, I am sobered by the ongoing building construction I see practically everywhere. When I first moved to Alameda some 20 years ago, we used to see foxes, rabbits, and even the occasional burrowing owl in the area, but no more. Okay, commercial progress must go on, and this land is zoned for development, so there is little that we can do about it now. But land that is presently zoned as Open Space (0) should be preserved as such. That is why I am opposed to the plan to rezone the property located at 500 Maitland Drive from 0 to Community Manufacturing Planned Development (CM -PD) so Harbor Bay RV and Storage can expand into this space. The main entry into Alameda from Ron Cowan Parkway is via Harbor Bay Parkway and Maitland Drive onto Bay Farm Island, and the small open triangle of land at that corner would be ideal for welcoming our visitors. This land could be simply landscaped with flowers, grass, and perhaps a small fountain. The proposed alternative is to have this potentially inviting space blocked off by a tall running fence or wall of the storage facility. Furthermore, hundreds of private homes, including mine, are located in this area, some since the early 1950s. The quality of life for these homeowners is gradually diminishing as the few remaining open spaces around us are filled in. A much preferable alternative is available for Harbor Bay RV & Storage to expand, if this is indeed essential to their business plan. There is a large vacant lot directly adjacent to their existing facility, near 1131 Harbor Bay Parkway. This land is already owned by Re: Agenda Item #4 -K 9 -5 -06 Rezoning of Open Space - P. Ballou Page 1 Harbor Bay Business Park, and is properly zoned for commercial use. Expanding the storage facility into this area will not impact the inviting open space for visitors and residents coming into Alameda via Ron Cowan Parkway. I encourage Alameda residents to express their views to the Alameda City Council. The public hearing for rezoning this land is taking place on Tuesday, Sept. 5, 2006, at 7:30PM at the City Hall. Sincerely, (p), Rezoning of Open Space — P. Ballou Page 2 Monday, August 28, 2006 CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO. New Series RECLASSIFYING AND REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OF ALAMEDA FROM OPEN SPACE (0) TO COMMERCIAL MANUFACTURING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (CM -PD) BY AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 1277, N.S. FOR THAT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 500 MAITLAND DRIVE BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that: Section 1. Section 11 -116 of Ordinance No. 1277, N.S., is hereby amended by reclassifying all the real property situated within the City of Alameda, County of Alameda, State of California, consisting of the Parcels 109 -2 and 109 -4 as shown on the attached survey plat from Open Space (0) Zoning District to Commercial Manufacturing - Planned Development (CM -PD) Zoning District. Section 2. The above amendment shall be known as and referenced to as Reclassification and Rezoning Amendment No. 199 to Ordinance No. 1277, N.S. Section 3. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of its final passage. Attest: Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda Presiding Officer of the Council Introduction of Ordinance #4 -K CC 9 -5 -06 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was duly and regularly adopted and passed by Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2006, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this day of , 2006. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda City of Alameda Memorandum Date: September 5, 2006 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: Debra Kurita City Manager Re: Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal of the Historical Advisory Board's Denial of the Alteration of More Than Thirty Percent of The Value of Historically Designated Single - Family Homes at 1530, 1532, and 1532'/2 Ninth Street; and Adoption of Related Resolution BACKGROUND The proposed project includes substantial rehabilitation of three single - family homes located on two adjoining parcels at 1530, 1532 and 1532V2 Ninth Street. The owner proposes to construct additions to the rear of each residence and raise each structure creating a new ground floor unit that provides disabled access. The project includes one new affordable unit and will be partially funded with Community Development Block Grant funds through a low interest loan from the City under the Substantial Rehabilitation Program. The project requires demolition approval from the Historical Advisory Board because the dwellings were constructed prior to 1942. The Historical Advisory Board denied the first request for a Certificate of Approval on May 4, 2006 because it failed to meet the "Golden Mean," a design guideline to preserve the character of Victorian style buildings in the Guide to Residential Design that suggests the height of the basement level should be no more than two thirds that of the upper story. Subsequently the applicant worked with staff and representatives of the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS) and revised the plans to comply with the Golden Mean and address other concerns raised at the May meeting. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS The revised application was considered by the HAB on August 3, 2006. The AAPS provided additional comments on the revised plans and the owner and architect indicated they would incorporate their recommendation into the project with the following exceptions: Agenda Item #5 -A 9 -5 -06 Honorable Mayor and September 5, 2006 Councilmembers Page 2 1) Add a walkway on the right side of the 1530 parcel for lower unit access, which the applicant stated would add hardscape and eliminates lawn and planting beds; 2) Use two houses in the next block as patterns for the trim replacement, while the applicant proposes replacing trim as it appears on shadow detail after siding removal; 3) Retain hardboard siding wherever possible, whereas the applicant proposed to patch upper level siding with material retained from the lower level but to replace the lower level siding with a profile that closely matches the existing to ensure a "lead -free unit" that is safe for occupation by a child under six; and 4) Retain existing windows. The applicant proposes to install new wood dual - glazed windows to meet energy conservation guidelines and reduce tenant utility costs. The sash profiles were to approximate the existing sash details. The proposed project meets the intent of the Guide to Residential Design and all development code requirements. Additionally, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) reviewed the plans submitted fortheAugust HAB meeting pursuant to Section 106 review required for Federal funding and found that the project would not affect the historic properties. However, the HAB suggested that the applicant again revise the plans to include restoration of the exterior trim to match the existing trim on another structure in the neighborhood. The HAB denied the Certificate of Approval for the revised project with four voting to deny the project and one member voting approval. The applicant appealed the HAB decision on August 14, 2006. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FISCAL IMPACT No City General Fund monies are used by this project. The Development Services Department will make a low cost loan to the owner using Community Development Block Grant funds under the Substantial Rehabilitation Program to assist the owner in creating the units. RECOMMENDATION Adopt resolution supporting the appeal of the Historical Advisory Board's denial and approve the Certificate of Approval. Honorable Mayor and September 5, 2006 Councilmembers Page 3 By: MD /DS Respectfully submitted, Cathy oodbury Planning and Building Director Cyn hia Eliason Supervising Planner Attachments: 1. HAB Staff Report — May 4, 2006 Meeting 2. Adopted Minutes of May 4, 2006 HAB Meeting 3. HAB Staff Report — August 3, 2006 Meeting 4. Draft Minutes of August 3, 2006 HAB Meeting 5. Letter from SHPO CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT ITEM NO.: APPLICATION: GENERAL PLAN: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: STAFF PLANNER: RECOMMENDATION: ACRONYMS: ATTACHMENTS: STAFF REPORT 3 Certificate of Approval CA06 -0009 — Li -Sheng Fu for Mohamed Elhashash — 1530/1532 9`h Street. The applicants are requesting a Certificate of Approval to alter more than thirty percent (30 %) of the value of three historically designated single - family homes, located at the above addresses for the purposes of remodeling and restoring the buildings. The site is located at 1530 and 1532 Ninth Street within an R -4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning District. Medium - Density Residential Categorically Exempt from State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301 — interior or exterior alterations to existing facilities. Emily Pude11, Planner II Approve with conditions. AMC — Alameda Municipal Code R -4 — Neighborhood Residential District 1. Draft Resolution 2. Permit History (for 1530 and 1532 9th Street) 2. Project Plans submitted April 17, 2006 I. PROPOSAL SUMMARY On April 17, 2006, applications for Major Design Review and a Certificate of Approval were received by the Planning and Building Department for the residential buildings at 1530, 1532 and 15321/2 9th Street. The proposal will require extensive interior remodeling of the three existing homes, new exterior siding that will match the existing siding, and new windows and doors. The applicant also proposes to construct additions to the rear of each residence and raising each residence for purposes of creating a new ground floor unit under each of the existing single - family homes. Alameda Historic Advisory Board Staff Report Meeting of May 4, 2006 Attachment #1 Agenda Item #5 -A 9 -5 -06 II. BACKGROUND/EXISTING CONDITIONS According to available resources, the Queen Anne cottage, high basement style homes at 1530 and 1532 9th Street were constructed in 1891 as single - family dwellings according to the Documentation of Victorian and Post Victorian Residential and Commercial Buildings (Gunn, pg. 137). The buildings are not identified in the Architectural and Historical Resources of the City of Alameda. Photographs, located below, were taken when the 1979 survey was conducted. 1532 (left) and 1532 (right) 9th Street; Alameda, CA According to the City's permit histories for these buildings, very few permits have been issued by the City of Alameda. Records indicate that one permit was issued for the repair of the porch in 1937 and three were issued in 1954 and 1966 for reroofing (Attachment # 2). Further research revealed that the original designer and builder of the subject property is listed as C.A. Brown. Mr. Cyrus A. Brown moved to Alameda, California in 1876. According to the Documentation of Victorian and Post Victorian Residential and Commercial Buildings (Gunn, Index), C.A. Brown designed and constructed more than 25 different residences within the City of Alameda, as well as a number of residences in surrounding suburbs. Further research of available resources did not provide additional information with regard to the original owner, James Wall, or his role in Alameda's history. III. DISCUSSION The proposed modifications to the residential buildings at 1530, 1532, and 15321/2 9`h Street affect all of the elevations of each of the three buildings. The proposed additions, modifications, and restoration of the structures will involve: • new siding and windows, including new trim for new window and door openings that will match the original • restoration of the exterior staircases • preservation of the 60/40 "golden mean" proportions • preservation of existing exterior trim Alameda Historic Advisory Board Staff Report Meeting of May 4, 2006 • extension of the buildings' existing rooflines along the same horizontal planes with no change in pitch All modifications are consistent with the architecture style of the buildings. Additionally, the applicants have proposed: • wood clad windows on front elevations (with matching vinyl windows on side and rear elevations) • new doors that will match the appearance of the original doors • maintenance of existing trim details (i.e. fascia boards) • new handrails, balustrade, and newel posts for the front and rear staircases that are reminiscent of the Queen Anne cottage architectural style. The additions, exterior modifications, and replacement windows will be reviewed as part of the Major Design Review process. Staff suggests conditioning the approval to ensure that siding materials, architectural details, handrails and ballustrade, and replacement windows and doors will match the original. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION This project qualifies for a Categorical Exemption from State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301, interior or exterior alterations to existing facilities. V. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Historic Advisory Board approve Certificate of Approval, CA06- 0009. Alameda Historic Advisory Board Staff Report Meeting of May 4, 2006 G:\ PLANNING \HAB\REPORTS\2006 \05- 04- 06\9th 1530 & 1532 CA06- 0009.doc 3 CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD RESOLUTION NO. HAB06 -09 A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL, CA06 -0009, TO ALTER MORE THAN THIRTY PERCENT (30 %) OF THE VALUE OF THREE HISTORICALLY DESIGNATED SINGLE - FAMILY HOMES FOR PURPOSES OF REMODELING AND RESTORING THE BUILDINGS AT 1530, 1532 AND 15321/2 9TH STREET. WHEREAS, Li -Sheng Fu made an application for Mohamed Elhashash for Major Design Review and Certificate of approval on April 17, 2006 to construct rear additions and raise each house at 1530, 1532, and 15321/2 9th Street for purposes of creating a new ground floor unit under each of the three existing single - family homes; and WHEREAS, the application was deemed complete on April 20, 2006; and WHEREAS, the General Plan designation of the site is Medium- Density Residential; and WHEREAS, the parcel is located within the R -4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning District; and WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings with regard to the proposed alterations of the dwellings: 1. Raising the buildings will alter the historical proportions ( "Golden Mean ") of the buildings and will significantly alter their visual appearance thereby adversely affecting the historic significance of the structures. 2. The location of the proposed lower level doorways is not appropriate for the cottage high basement style architecture of the two dwellings abutting 9th Street. 3. The proposed vinyl windows do not have adequate visual relief from the exterior surface of the buildings to be compatible with the Design Guidelines regulating replacement windows on historic structures. 4. Proposed plans to remodel the exterior of the building do not incorporate architectural details that were prominently found on cottage high basement buildings from the late 1800's. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Historical Advisory Board finds that the alterations to the dwellings at 1530, 1532 and 15321/2 9th Street, as proposed, will adversely affect the historic significance of the dwellings and is, therefore, denied. NOTICE. No judicial proceedings subject to review pursuant to California Code of Civil 1 Procedure Section 1094.5 may be prosecuted more than ninety (90) days following the date of this decision plus extensions authorized by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6 HOLD HARMLESS. The City of Alameda requires as a condition of this approval that the applicant, or its successors in interest, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Alameda or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, and employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City concerning the subject property. The City of Alameda shall notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and the City shall cooperate in the defense. If the City fails to notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding, or the City fails to cooperate in the defense, the applicant shall not hereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. The decision of the Historical Advisory Board shall be final unless appealed to the City Council, in writing and within ten (10) days of the decision by competing and submitting an appeal form paying the required fee. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of May 2006 by the Historical Advisory Board of the City of Alameda by the following vote: AYES: (4) Anderson, Iverson, Lynch, Miller NOES: (0) ABSENT: (1) Tilos ATTEST: Cathy Woodbury, Secretary City Planning Board G:\PLANNING\HAB\RESO\2006 \9th 1530 &1532 CA06 -0009 denial reso.doc 2 CITY OF ALAMEDA - ADDRESS ACTIVITY REPORT Activity at: 1530 NINTH Permit Type Status Applicant Work Description Issued Date Flnaled Date CA06- Historic APPLIED MOHAMED PROPOSAL TO ALTER MORE THAN 0009 Advisory ELHASHASH 30% OF THE VALUE OF THREE Board DUPLEXES CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO 1942. PROPOSAL INVOLVES MAKING EACH OF THE THREE BUILDINGS INTO DUPLEXES. DR06- Major APPLIED LI -SHENG FU MAJOR DESIGN REVIEW ONLY 0034 Design (1530, 1532 AND 1534 NINTH ST) - Review RAISE THREE EXISTING SFD'S TO CREATE NEW UNIT AT LOWER LEVEL OF EACH LLA06- Lot Line APPROVE ELHASHASH LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (1530 & 0003 Adjustment D MOHAMED 1532 NINTH ST) P98 -6277 Plumbing FINAL RANGER PLBG - INSTALL KELLY CLEANOUT 01/29/1999 Permit PIPELINES (CITY) P98 -6278 Plumbing DUPLCAT RANGER PLBG - INSTALL KELLY CLEANOUT Permit E PIPELINES (CITY) Rpt6063 04/25/06 Page 1 of 1 Attachment 2 g;uewyaeuy s hA, ........... �:�: rmaPiDta V H1 e, a s vzx11o3rzv3 blrOaKiVIV ,-4 I e 1A E ,�e � J' 1o_ - - ' --- C15 - u �� o $ ' ~Q Y m1 Wi -Li d DWI rn � A O$A« P .; tip lit C °!, . ez 9g�i Q ;.c ^fit �tnF s pylQg C77 - i \-� ° 8 'AIWA .1 N ? m n x p� ���" o- 14:4 — Ar #.�r� ,.� fc���a. .�7y ._ 5 g w Es v,IdirpuEi. ,t9 /11 ° ° i i ° it 2. - iCCii� _- - - 11 X11 lgoA ge lit limill2 I a n iii Bird ligfi 1 hg$ a tite r Cd2SE iliogaz NNAuimo�v�iFvsf 5 gBiNU°i gGA�r�ig Rm,,,C01.4 r;F 0 Qi $i 3W4h 1g g8t l 111111i dillia g i 1W 1 illh liAliii.111 lat 11Wil b5161 gd LLC C 2ii5dEga Tabl 12' egg S g 233, 3Y11g 4=JMid Y- 4LJ ogoo ioo PAgea u o 0 1 1 1 °� a 1 M z 1;18 1 _ i I igil 11dd11 1 s likki of III IIII1 fi gi C gg y g III 2 ,% 0 hh o— - O 1 Y [ it iii l a9 hl(INENd[IU li i 1! ill m 1 _ 1 j 1 11 ®o 1 i 11 111 IR / 1 111 i 11 M ; 1 i \ , rr. ��. P rr , y\ i i r I I I 4 1 a MINX W6.11 V 11 VIN130.111Va VG-1111W111 14 6 % Z.EST 1ST 'OM MOLLIMY flMJ 114 1111111111111 711 0 is 1 a I a t CI 5 1 1 WOMAN sa91.Mslysetrejnv V II ri vaorivj 1,03141rIV as „,6 54 ZESI 'ZESI VEST 1 1-4 lflflk ps4-1,s ..)721,7 lizrall • 1 met-aims maYaw v run V H TaalkirlY Is�s�e x ZES1 E61 "f e' NoLUaar 1wp f 1 d HNI i1111 HEN =1 )11111111 I V $ 'I vIN loITrvo va VZV •1s� gt6 % ZEST UST TEST L% NOT]daav IINn I ' Sb.9ply__ V III 111111111 3. Certificate of Approval — CA06 -0009 — Applicant: Mohamed Elhashash — 1530 & 1532 Ninth Street. The applicant requests a Certificate of Approval to alter more than thirty percent (30%) of the value of three historically designated single - family homes, located at the above addresses for the purposes of remodeling and restoring the buildings. The site is located at 1530 and 1532 Ninth Street within an R -4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning District. (EP) Ms. Pudell summarized staff report. Staff is recommending approval of Certificate of Approval CA06 -0009, with conditions as stated in draft resolution. Chair Anderson opened the public hearing Li -Shung Fu, Architect, spoke in favor of the Certificate of Approval. Dick Rutter, 2205 Clinton Ave., stated that the golden mean has not been properly applied. He is not in favor of approving the Certificate of Approval. Birgitt Evans, AAPS, concurs with Dick Rutter. She is not in favor of approving the Certificate of Approval. Kevin Frederick, 1287 Caroline St., is not in favor of approving the Certificate of Approval. There were no more speaker slips. Chair Anderson opened the floor to board discussion. Board Member Lynch stated that there should be more detail around the windows to match other Victorian cottages built around the same time. She would like the new siding to match the existing. She is not in favor of approving this application. Vice -Chair Miller stated that if this was a restoration, then they should restore it back to original. He stated that raising the house would drastically change the appearance of the building. He is not in favor of approving this application. Board Member Iverson is not in favor of approving the application. Chair Anderson would like all windows replacements to be wood. She agrees with the Board and is not in favor of approving this project. Ms. Woodbury requested the Board re -open the public hearing to allow Miriam Delegrange, DSD, to speak. M/S to re -open the public hearing. 4 -0 -1. Ayes: 4; Noes: 0; Absent: 1. Motion carries. Minutes of May 4, 2006 Attachment #2 Agenda Item #5 -A 9 -5 -06 Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting Page 3 Ms. Delegrange, project manager, informed the Board that this project will be providing much needed affordable housing. She also stated that the reason for raising the house is to provide ADA access. The reason why they are proposing vinyl windows on the sides of the house is so they can be energy efficient, however she does not have a problem with changing them all to wood. Chair Anderson closed the public hearing. M/S to approve the Certificate of Approval, CA06 -0009, to alter more than thirty percent (30 %) of the value of three historically designated single - family homes at 1530, 1532 and 1532 l 9th Street. 0 -4 -1. Ayes: 0; Noes: 4; Absent: 1. Motion denied. REPORTS: None. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: (Discussion only) None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Board Member Lynch would like to invite the Board to the Alameda Legacy Home Tour. Also, docents are needed. STAFF COMMUNICATION: Ms. Woodbury informed the Board that staff would like to schedule a study session to review the Design Guidelines. On May 2, 2006 the City Council proclaimed May 2006 as National Preservation Month. Staff has hired a consultant to assist with the revisions to the Historical Preservation Ordinance. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:47 p.m. Respectfully Submitted by: Cathy Woodbury Planning & Building Director G:\ PLANNING\ HAB\ AGENMLN \Agenmin.06 \04- 06- 06 \04 -06 -06 DRAFT min 1.doc Minutes of May 4, 2006 Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting Page 4 CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT ITEM NO.: APPLICATION: GENERAL PLAN: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: STAFF PLANNER: RECOMMENDATION: ACRONYMS: ATTACHMENTS: STAFF REPORT 1 Certificate of Approval CA06 -00012 — Li -Sheng Fu for Mohamed Elhashash — 1530/1532 9th Street. The applicants are requesting a Certificate of Approval to alter more than thirty percent (30 %) of the value of three historically designated single - family homes, located at the above addresses for the purposes of remodeling and restoring the buildings. The site is located at 1530 and 1532 Ninth Street within an R -4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning District. Medium - Density Residential Categorically Exempt from State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301 — interior or exterior alterations to existing facilities. Judith Altschuler, Planner Approve with conditions. AMC — Alameda Municipal Code R -4 — Neighborhood Residential District 1. Draft Resolution 2. May 4, 2006 Resolution HAB- 06 -09, denying CA06 -0009. 3. /Staff Report and Attachments prepared for the May 4, 2006 HAB meeting. 4. Minutes from May 4, 2006 HAB meeting 5. Letter from Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS). 6. Revised Project Plans submitted July 10, 2006 I. PROPOSAL BACKGROUND On April 17, 2006, applications for Major Design Review and a Certificate of Approval were received by the Planning and Building Department for the residential buildings at 1530, 1532 and 1532'A 9th Street. The Historical Advisory Board acted to deny the Certificate of Approval Attachment #3 Alameda Historic Advisory Board Agenda Item #5 -A Staff Report 9 -5 -06 Meeting of August 3, 2006 on May 4, 2006. The applicant has been working with Staff and representatives of the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society to revise plans which address design concerns raised at the May HAB meeting. The revised plans were submitted on July 10, 2006 and are attached. II. DISCUSSION After review of the original plans, the Board denied the proposed plans primarily because the proposed raising of the buildings would alter the historical proportions of the houses which would significantly alter the visual appearance of the buildings. The applicant has submitted revised plans which show an alternative front elevation which preserves the "Golden Mean" proportionality and still would allow for the necessary raising of the buildings. By modestly regrading the front yard, the lower story would appear as being 6' -6" from grade. This design alternative would still allow the raising of the buildings to allow for a compliant interior ceiling height without the need to lower the bottom unit to below grade. The Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS) as well as staff, supports this design alterative and recommends approval of the Certificate of Approval. Staff further recommends that the comments by the AAPS relating to the design for this project be incorporated into the future design review action. III. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION This project qualifies for a Categorical Exemption from State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301, interior or exterior alterations to existing facilities. IV. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Historic Advisory Board find the project Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, and approve Certificate of Approval, CA06 -0012, to alter three historically designated single- family homes. G:\PLANNING\HAB\REPORTS\2006 \9th 1530 & 1532 CA06- 0012.doc Alameda Historic Advisory Board Staff Report Meeting of August 3, 2006 2 CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD RESOLUTION NO. HAB -06 -18 A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA APPROVING CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL, CA06 -0012, TO ALTER MORE THAN THIRTY PERCENT (30 %) OF THE VALUE OF THREE HISTORICALLY DESIGNATED SINGLE - FAMILY HOMES FOR PURPOSES OF REMODELING AND RESTORING THE BUILDINGS AT 1530, 1532 AND 1532'/2 9TH STREET. WHEREAS, Li -Sheng Fu made an application for Mohamed Elhashash for Major Design Review and Certificate of approval on May 16, 2006 to construct rear additions and raise each house at 1530, 1532, and 15321/2 9th Street for purposes of creating a new ground floor unit under each of the three existing single - family homes; and WHEREAS, the application was deemed complete on 26 July 2006; and WHEREAS, the General Plan designation of the site is Medium - Density Residential; and WHEREAS, the parcel is located within the R -4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning District; and WHEREAS, the proposal is Categorically Exempt from CEQA, Guidelines, Section 15301 — interior or exterior alterations to existing facilities; WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings with regard to the proposed alterations of the dwellings: 1. As conditioned, the proposed exterior alterations, modifications and new additions will match the original buildings to ensure that the historic significance of the structures will not be altered. NOW, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Historical Advisory Board finds that the alterations to the dwellings at 1530, 1532 and 1532'/2 9th Street, as proposed, will not affect the historic significance of the dwellings and is approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed modifications to the buildings shall be completed in substantial compliance with the plans prepared by Li -Sheng Fu, received 10 July 2006 by the Permit Center, marked as "Exhibit A ", on file in the City of Alameda Planning and Building Department. 2. Through the Design Review process, all of the proposed exterior modifications, including new siding and windows, restoration of the buildings' exterior staircases, exterior window and door trim, new doors, and new rooflines shall match the details on the existing buildings to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director. 1 HOLD HARMLESS. The City of Alameda requires as a condition of this approval that the applicant, or its successors in interest, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Alameda or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, and employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City concerning the subject property. The City of Alameda shall notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and the City shall cooperate in the defense. If the City fails to notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding, or the City fails to cooperate in the defense, the applicant shall not hereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. The decision of the Historical Advisory Board shall be final unless appealed to the City Council, in writing and within ten (10) days of the decision. AYES: (1) IRONS NOES: (4) ANDERSON, MILLER, IVERSON, LYNCH ABSENT: (0) Motion failed. Project deemed denied. G:\PLANNING\HAB\RESO\2006 \9th 1530 &1532 CA06 -0012 draft reso.doc 2 CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD RESOLUTION NO. DRAFT A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA APPROVING CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL, CA06 -0009, TO ALTER MORE THAN THIRTY PERCENT (30 %) OF THE VALUE OF THREE HISTORICALLY DESIGNATED SINGLE - FAMILY HOMES FOR PURPOSES OF REMODELING AND RESTORING THE BUILDINGS AT 1530, 1532 AND 15321/2 9TH STREET. WHEREAS, Li -Sheng Fu made an application for Mohamed Elhashash for Major Design Review and Certificate of approval on May 16, 2006 to construct rear additions and raise each house at 1530, 1532, and 1532'/2 9th Street for purposes of creating a new ground floor unit under each of the three existing single - family homes; and WHEREAS, the application was deemed complete on 26 July 2006; and WHEREAS, the General Plan designation of the site is Medium - Density Residential; and WHEREAS, the parcel is located within the R -4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning District; and WHEREAS, the proposal is Categorically Exempt from CEQA, Guidelines, Section 15301 — interior or exterior alterations to existing facilities; WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings with regard to the proposed alterations of the dwellings: 1. As conditioned, the proposed exterior alterations, modifications and new additions will match the original buildings to ensure that the historic significance of the structures will not be altered. NOW, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Historical Advisory Board finds that the alterations to the dwellings at 1530, 1532 and 15321/2 9th Street, as proposed, will not affect the historic significance of the dwellings and is approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed modifications to the buildings shall be completed in substantial compliance with the plans prepared by Li -Sheng Fu, received 10 July 2006 by the Permit Center, marked as "Exhibit A ", on file in the City of Alameda Planning and Building Department. 2. Through the Design Review process, all of the proposed exterior modifications, including new siding and windows, restoration of the buildings' exterior staircases, exterior window and door trim, new doors, and new rooflines shall match the details on the existing buildings to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director. 1 Attachment 1 HOLD HARMLESS. The City of Alameda requires as a condition of this approval that the applicant, or its successors in interest, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Alameda or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, and employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City concerning the subject property. The City of Alameda shall notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and the City shall cooperate in the defense. If the City fails to notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding, or the City fails to cooperate in the defense, the applicant shall not hereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF CONDITIONS. The applicant shall acknowledge in writing all of the conditions of approval and must accept this permit subject to those conditions and with full awareness of the applicable provisions of Chapter 30 of the Alameda Municipal Code in order for this approval to be exercised. The decision of the Historical Advisory Board shall be final unless appealed to the City Council, in writing and within ten (10) days of the decision. G:\PLANNING\HAB\RES0\2006 \9th 1530 &1532 CA06 -0012 draft reso.doc 2 1 CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD RESOLUTION NO. HAB06 -09 A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL, CA06 -0009, TO ALTER MORE THAN THIRTY PERCENT (30 %) OF THE VALUE OF THREE HISTORICALLY DESIGNATED SINGLE - FAMILY HOMES FOR PURPOSES OF REMODELING AND RESTORING THE BUILDINGS AT 1530, 1532 AND 15321/2 9TH STREET. WHEREAS, Li -Sheng Fu made an application for Mohamed Elhashash for Major Design Review and Certificate of approval on April 17, 2006 to construct rear additions and raise each house at 1530, 1532, and 15321/2 9th Street for purposes of creating a new ground floor unit under each of the three existing single- family homes; and WHEREAS, the application was deemed complete on April 20, 2006; and WHEREAS, the General Plan designation of the site is Medium - Density Residential; and WHEREAS, the parcel is located within the R -4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning District; and WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings with regard to the proposed alterations of the dwellings: 1. Raising the buildings will alter the historical proportions ( "Golden Mean") of the buildings and will significantly alter their visual appearance thereby adversely affecting the historic significance of the structures. 2. The location of the proposed lower level doorways is not appropriate for the cottage high basement style architecture of the two dwellings abutting 9tn Street. 3. The proposed vinyl windows do not have adequate visual relief from the exterior surface of the buildings to be compatible with the Design Guidelines regulating replacement windows on historic structures. 4. Proposed plans to remodel the exterior of the building do not incorporate architectural details that were prominently found on cottage high basement buildings from the late 1800's. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Historical Advisory Board finds that the alterations to the dwellings at 1530, 1532 and 1532%2 9th Street, as proposed, will adversely affect the historic significance of the dwellings and is, therefore, denied. NOTICE. No judicial proceedings subject to review pursuant to California Code of Civil 1 Attachment 2 Procedure Section 1094.5 may be prosecuted more than ninety (90) days following the date of this decision plus extensions authorized by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6 HOLD HARMLESS. The City of Alameda requires as a condition of this approval that the applicant, or its successors in interest, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Alameda or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, and employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City concerning the subject property. The City of Alameda shall notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and the City shall cooperate in the defense. If the City fails to notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding, or the City fails to cooperate in the defense, the applicant shall not hereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. The decision of the Historical Advisory Board shall be final unless appealed to the City Council, in writing and within ten (10) days of the decision by competing and submitting an appeal form paying the required fee. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of May 2006 by the Historical Advisory Board of the City of Alameda by the following vote: AYES: (4) Anderson, Iverson, Lynch, Miller NOES: (0) ABSENT: (1) Tilos ATTEST: ' Cathy . s odbury, Seer City P = • .1g Board G :\PLANNING\HAB\RESO\2006 \9th 1530 &1532 CA06 -0009 denial reso.doc 2 -41k ?? '= r.!# -7$ �x6' 'v` - Jf'r-r A2 1, 0041!' :: e65$.`b r:i+ nnTWoic!` r e+ bajitiMELEOZr :Y s ' �t`: ? ''s. e'LL a', aJ e aT, #?d ` v<ai� 3;s s .• "rS ki . • r • ;F rr • • S+- •• ■ re • .4_ - • - rr IR .4_ Y ' .1 F I i>t IFT• L rr .�.r -l- 1 - -� iY'w' -- • 1 I. eik 1 7 .-7ff-J.V.Z.T-7?-.1--• 2 N)k ri r .;. •: A _A 14 I rig I 1 1! rA — I - r ' :■:79.X74. 'Y. Ai:W.14:4.1v/ 45,1Y7c,(14. A a sera MMROoar 51.5530SST WOE ONllI V H 'I VIxxovD vavzv 'IS 6 54 MT •z£SI •o[sr +sorrsaav .cram m E N • )- '1 1 n 40 tr <¢rt < d a 11 z 1111111mill g lin gi Qiiiilli k 1 111 gilligi 111111ii h 1116111.111 Ink ° iliiillii 111111i11111101 Igi olnAH 1 h 0- 0 I al 1 EP 1 a HihnNid 1 h 1 h it § 1 m <1> m 1 liI 3� s � 5 g J 1/ ° g , it o r7,,. s\ 1 � 1 PErrararil VTE ifnaiosicnow EE�1TV Fes` b 9 1 R b� 1 Firterragav New. Is 6 z 1 I tit 1 V(((III 1111111 hl II 11011 SS 111111 !HM I V III MIME um (III[ 11 ,, • 1 fn :9 I '- �Ei _i �ILlIi 1111111 041111111111111 s +O z 1 FINA,4"7"witril ffEBSWATA V H vtiotoartra •ItealWrilt Tat 'NO flukormay 1114E1 1 MelEtir WPM VHnI vlisiaosnva VerialIFIV se:01 .71; I I 111M1111111 m Ste 2 111 SR iisiptmg mum, talVERIThril V $ . 'I VIN1I0,111'IVD'VQa IV as 6 %UST 'ZEST a 1 a 1 L 821f13 ri&ROIS Z'd 0869999019 6uesil nd N 00 N J 86041. 90 LZ IT 1 v D -Q tn DRAFT ACTION ITEMS: 1. Certificate of Approval - CA06 -00012 —1530 & 1532 Ninth Street. Applicant: Mohamed Elhashash. The applicant is requesting a new Certificate of Approval to alter more than .thirty percent (30 %) of the value of three historically designated single - family homes. The site is located at 1530 and 1532 Ninth Street within an R -4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning District. Cynthia Eliason, Supervising Planner, presented staff report. On May 4, 2006, the Historical Advisory Board acted to deny a Certificate of Approval. The applicant has since been working with Staff and representatives of the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS) to revise plans to address design concerns raised at the May HAB meeting. Staff is recommending the Board approve the Certificate of Approval CA06 -0012, with conditions as stated in the draft Resolution. Chair Anderson opened the Public hearing. Miriam Delagrange, project manager, Development Services, spoke in favor of the revised design. Dick Rutter, AAPS, reviewed letter submitted by AAPS and is in favor of approving the Certificate of Approval. Li -Sheng Fu, architect, spoke in favor of revised design. He informed the Board that he is willing to incorporate AAPS's suggestions into the plans. He informed the Board that the plans for the rear building have not changed and that all the exterior doors will match existing door. Chris Buckley, AAPS, spoke in favor of approving the Certificate of Approval with the conditions stated in letter submitted by AAPS. Kevin Frederick, 1287 Caroline St. is not in favor of revised design. There were no further speaker slips, Chair Anderson closed the public hearing and opened the floor to Board discussion. Board Member Lynch thanked the applicant for his attempt to incorporate the Board's suggestions into the revised plan. She feels that the revised plans don't include enough of the original design details. Vice -Chair Miller is not in favor of revised design. Board Member Iverson also thanked the architect for revising the plans. She would like to see the front detail match an existing house located down the street. Minutes of August 3, 2006 Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting Page 2 Attachment #4 Agenda Item #5 -A 9 -5 -06 DRAFT M/S (Irons, Miller) to approve Certificate of Approval CA06 -0012, to alter more than thirty percent of the value of three historically designated single - family homes located at 1530 & 1532 1 Ninth Street. 1 -4 -0. Ayes: 1(Irons); Noes: 4; Absent: 0; Motion failed. Item deemed denied. M/S (Lynch, Iverson) and unanimous to continue this item to a future meeting to allow the applicant to incorporate the Board's comments into the plans. 5 -0 -0. Ayes: 5; Noes: 0; Absent: 0. Motion carries. Secretary Eliason stated that staff will inform the Board if the applicant chooses to revise the plans. 2. a. Certificate of Approval - CA06 -0017 - 2020 Oak Street. Applicant: Richard Hornberger. Applicant requests a Certificate of Approval to move an existing, pre -1909 dwelling from its existing site to the corner of Oak Street and Blanding Avenue. Both sites are within the M -2, General Industrial Zoning District. and; b. Certificate of Approval - CA06 -0018 - 2319 Clement Avenue. Applicant: Richard Hornberger Applicant requests a Certificate of Approval to permit the demolition of a vacant pre -1909 industrial building. The site is located within the M -2, General Industrial Zoning District. Cynthia Eliason, Supervising Planner presented the staff report. The Board will be considering two separate Certificates of Approval. The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Approval to move an existing residence from a site at 2020 Oak Street to the corner of Oak Street and Blanding Ave. Further, the applicant requests a Certificate of Approval to permit the demolition of the industrial building located at 2319 Clement Ave. These requests are part of a project to expand the Perforce Software facility located at 2320 Blanding Ave. Staff is recommending approval of CA06 -0017 and CA06 -0018 with the conditions as stated in the draft resolutions. Chair Anderson opened the Public hearing. Ken Carvallo and Christopher Buckley, AAPS, spoke in favor of approving both Certificates of Approvals. There were no further speaker slips. Chair Anderson closed the public hearing and opened the floor to Board discussion. The Board had no concerns with either proposal. M/S (Iverson, Lynch) and unanimous to approve CA06 -0017, to move an existing, pre -1909 dwelling from its existing site to the corner of Oak Street and Blanding Ave. and CA06 -0018, to Minutes of August 3, 2006 Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting Page 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA — THE RESOURCES AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Govemor OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION P.O. BOX 942896 SACRAMENTO, CA 94296 -0001 (916) 653 -6624 Fax: (916) 653 -9824 calshpo@ohp.parks:ca.gov www.ohp. parks.ca.gov Miriam Delagrange Reconstruction Specialist City of Alameda Development Services Department 950 West Mall Square Alameda, CA 94501 -7552 In Reply Refer To: HUD060717B Dear Ms. Delagrange: RE: REHABILITATION PROJECT AT 1530, 1532, 1532'h, NINTH STREET, ALAMEDA, CA Thank you for forwarding the above referenced undertakings to my office for review and comment pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and its implementing regulations found at 36 CFR Part 800. Pursuant to 36 CFR §800.4(d), I do not object to your determinations that no historic properties will be affected by the undertakings referenced above. However, your agency may have additional Section 106 responsibilities under certain circumstances set forth in 36 CFR Part 800. For example, in the event that cultural or historical resources are discovered during the implementation of either undertaking your agency is required to consult further pursuant to 36 CFR §800.13(b). Your consideration of historic properties during the project planning process is appreciated. If you have questions, please contact John Thomas, State Historian II, Local Government and Information Management Unit at (916) 653 -9125 or email jthomas @parks.ca.gov. Sincerely, Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIA State Historic Preservation Officer Cc Cathy Woodbury, CLG Coordinator Attachment #5 Agenda Item #5 -A 9 -5 -06 Approved as to Form CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. OVERTURNING THE HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD DENIAL OF THE ALTERATION OF MORE THAN THIRTY PERCENT OF THE VALUE OF HISTORICALLY DESIGNATED SINGLE - FAMILY HOMES AT 1530, 1532 AND 1532% NINTH STREET WHEREAS, Li -Sheng Fu made an application for Mohamed Elhashash for Major Design Review and Certificate of Approval on April 17, 2006 to construct rear additions and raise each house at 1530, 1532, and 1532% Ninth Street for purposes of creating a new ground floor unit under each of the three existing single - family homes; and WHEREAS, the General Plan designation of the site is Medium - Density Residential; and WHEREAS, the parcel is located within the R -4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning District; and and WHEREAS, the application was deemed complete on April 20, 2006; WHEREAS, on May 4, 2006 the Historical Advisory Board found that the proposed alterations to the dwellings at 1530, 1532 and 1532Y2 Ninth Street would adversely affect the historic significance of the dwellings and denied the Certificate of Approval; and WHEREAS, the applicant subsequently redesigned the project and submitted new plans on July 10, 2006 to address the concerns of the Historical Advisory Board; and WHEREAS, on August 3, 2006 the Historical Advisory Board considered the revised design and denied the Certificate of Approval for the proposed alterations to the dwellings at 1530, 1532 and 1532% Ninth Street; and WHEREAS, on August 14, 2006 Li -Sheng Fu acting on behalf of for Mohamed Elhashash appealed the denial of the Historical Advisory Board; and WHEREAS, the project meets all development code requirements; and WHEREAS, the project meets the intent of the Guide to Residential Design; and WHEREAS, the City is in receipt of a letter from the State Historic Preservation Office indicating that no historic properties will be affected. 1 Resolution #5 -A 9 -5 -06 NOW, BE IT RESOLVED that the proposal is Categorically Exempt from CEQA, Guidelines,, Section 15301 — interior or exterior alterations to existing facilities; NOW, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that City Council overturns the August 3, 2006 Historical Advisory Board action and finds that the alterations to the dwellings at 1530, 1532 and 1532% Ninth Street, as proposed, will not affect the historic significance of the dwellings and the Certificate. of Approval for the project is thereby approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed modifications to the buildings shall be completed in substantial compliance with the plans prepared by Li -Sheng Fu, received July 10, 2006 by the Permit Center, marked as "Exhibit A ", on file in the City of Alameda Planning and Building Department. 2. Through the Design Review process, all of the proposed exterior modifications, including new siding and windows, restoration of the buildings' exterior staircases, exterior window and door trim, new doors, and new rooflines shall match the details on the existing buildings to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director. 3. The existing main entry doors shall be retained. 4. As part of the Design Review submittal, elevation and section details of all trim elements shall be submitted to the Planning and Building Department for review and approval. 2 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2006, by the following vote to wit: AYES NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said City this day of , 2006. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda City of Alameda Memorandum Date: September 5, 2006 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: Debra Kurita City Manager Re: Resolution to Amend the Master Fee Resolution No. 12191 to Revise and Streamline the Planning & Building Department, Public Works Department and Fire Department Fee Schedules BACKGROUND The City of Alameda has engaged MAXIMUS, Inc. to conduct a detailed cost of services study of user fee activities in the Planning and Building, Public Works and Fire Departments. User fee activities are those services and functions the City provides to individuals who receive a direct or personal material benefit from the services, for which the City generally charges specific fees. This study identified the full cost of services for which user fees are currently being charged or could be charged. This "full cost" calculation, which was based on cost of services at 2004 rates, includes all legitimate direct and indirect costs associated with providing each service, including direct support costs from other divisions plus departmental and Citywide overhead. The last comprehensive fee study was conducted in 1999. The primary goals and objectives of the study include: • Structure the fees to accurately reflect the processes and organization of the divisions. • Simplify the fee schedules to make them easier to implement and understand. • Ensure a connection between fees and the cost of services provided. • Ensure the fees are logical and defensible. • Provide a revenue projection based on the full recovery of City costs. Agenda Item #5 -B 9 -5 -06 Honorable Mayor and September 5, 2006 Councilmembers Page 2 DISCUSSION Planning and Engineering Divisions Fee Methodology Maximus used a standard methodology they have employed in hundreds of similar studies to determine the appropriate Planning and Engineering Division fees. Initially, Maximus worked with City personnel to develop time estimates for each fee -based service. Based on these estimates the direct cost attributed to each fee was calculated. With this information the cost of services and supplies, as well as related expenses were allocated. Additionally, the appropriate amount of Citywide and departmental overhead was distributed. Included in these overhead costs for Planning was one half the cost of establishing a One —Stop Permit Center with the other half included in the calculation of the Building Division overhead costs. The end result of this analysis is a list of full actual costs for individual services. Building and Fire Prevention Divisions Fee Methodology For the Building and Fire Prevention Divisions, Maximus used a specific costing methodology called NEXUS. The objective is to transition operations away from the historically accepted method of establishing fees based on valuation of the project. Using valuation based models to determine user fees is no longer the recommended industry standard as it is difficult to create the connection or nexus between the actual cost of a service and the price charged for that same service. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FISCAL IMPACT Planning The analysis of Planning activities indicates an excellent opportunity to provide a fee structure that sets appropriate costs for routine project entitlements by establishing a flat fee. The Customer Service Improvement Team and staff discussed the methodology used by Maximus to establish flat fees and the Committee recommended that the City continue to charge time and materials in cases where there is a significant fluctuation in staff time spent. This approach ensures that all customers pay their fair share and small projects are not overburdened with excessive fees. Staff recommends establishing a flat fee only for the more routine project entitlements that show very little variation in cost such as, use permits, variances and design review, which would provide the customer with a predictable and reliable cost estimate for Planning services. However, the actual cost of planning services for the more complex Planning activities such as, General Plan amendments, changes in zoning and planned developments, is quite variable and depends on the nature of the project. Therefore, staff recommends maintaining a base rate plus time and materials charges for the more complex projects, which would provide for cost recovery while ensuring that each applicant pays the appropriate amount for Planning services. In addition, reductions in several fees are proposed: Honorable Mayor and September 5, 2006 Councilmembers Page 3 • Home Occupation Permits — reduce from $150 to $100. • Over - the - counter Design Review for items such as exterior stairs, change of sign copy or face, and replacement in -kind for windows or siding — reduce from $150 to $30. Building The fee tables and cost analysis of the Building Division's fee - related services were established using time estimates for each phase of project intake, processing, plan check and inspection and for each build's type of construction, occupancy and size. The result for new construction permits is a unit cost per square foot, and in the case of miscellaneous permits and sub -trade items, a unit cost per unit. Below is a chart outlining some of the common Building activities and how the recommended fee structure would impact the applicant. Permit Type Annual Quantity Average Current Fee Proposed Fee Kitchen and Bathroom Remodel 776 $ 979.00 $ 826.00 Re -roof 175 $ 253.00 $ 229.00 Residential Room Addition 73 $ 1,894.00 $ 1,261.00 Office Tenant Improvement (5,000 sq ft) 10 $ 1,500.00 $ 2,751.00 Replace Existing Furnace 92 $ 94.00 $ 96.00 Seismic Retrofit (Over the Counter) 52 $ 650.00 $ 150.00* Seismic Retrofit 25 $ 1,100.00 $ 300.00* • The Seismic Retrofit fees have been set below 100% cost recovery rate as an incentive to property owners to upgrade their buildings. Public Works /Engineering The analysis of Public Works /Engineering services indicates that there are several fee categories where the established fee is at a rate below the full cost to perform the service. The analysis also indicated several fee categories currently being charged as time and materials, which could be converted to a flat rate fee. Where fees are proposed to change from time and materials to a flat rate, the proposed fee was established using time estimates for each phase of the project including processing, plan check and /or inspection. Incorporating flat fees benefits the applicant by establishing the total cost of the project at the time of permit submittal. Fees associated with property development are recommended to be established at 100% cost recovery. Not all of the Public Works fees are proposed at 100% cost recovery. In evaluating the fee schedule it was determined that in some cases it is appropriate to set the fees at less than full cost when the activity is considered of general public benefit. Fees that would fall into Honorable Mayor and September 5, 2006 Councilmembers Page 4 this category are concrete permits for homeowner sidewalk repair or special event permits, such as for parades. The Public Works fees associated with concrete permits are for inspection of the work. Viewing sidewalk repairs as a public benefit, Public Works has proposed that sidewalk concrete work up to 20 linear feet would be at no cost. This length is roughly equal to one half of a parcel frontage. For repairs of 21 to 50 linear feet a permit fee of $25 is recommended and for 51 to 200 linear feet a permit fee of $75 is recommended. For concrete permits greater than 200 linear feet, which is usually associated with a subdivision or commercial project, the recommended fee reverts to 100% cost recovery, or $300. Excavation permits, for multiple locations, which are generally obtained by utility companies and developers, are currently priced below full cost recovery and receive a General Fund subsidy of $463 per permit. Staff proposes that permits associated with public utilities for gas, water and electric services, be increased to 100% recovery, but that increase be phased over three years. In addition, Public Works /Engineering staff also recommend that all public benefit activities be adjusted as indicated on the attached proposed Master Fee shetts and that all private benefit activities be increased to the 100% cost recovery rate. Fire Prevention The analysis of Fire Prevention services indicates fees currently charged are not adequate to capture the actual costs of the services provided. The recommended fees were established using time estimates for each type of inspection. Below is a chart outlining the most common Fire Prevention activities and how the proposed fee structure would impact the fee - payer. Fee or Service Annual Quantity Current Fee Proposed Fee Re- inspection — after initial and 1ST inspection 1050 $ 125.00 $ 144.00 Group M (Stores) Occupancies 400 $ 63.00 $ 156.00 Group B (Offices & small restaurants) Occupancies — 1 -2,500 square feet 270 $ 63.00 $ 192.00 Group B (Offices & small restaurants) Occupancies — 2,501 -5,000 square feet 90 $ 63.00 $ 264.00 Group A -3 (Large restaurants & small auditoriums) Occupancies 61 $ 125.00 $ 264.00 Group S -3 (Repair Garages) Occupancies 45 $ 63.00 $ 192.00 Honorable Mayor and September 5, 2006 Councilmembers Page 5 Permit Center The Permit Center processes and issues permits for Planning and Building, Public Works and Fire Prevention. To cover the cost of processing these permits a filing fee of $38 is charged. The proposed fee schedule identifies several no -cost, public benefit permits for which a filing fee will not be charged. Additionally, all appeals processed through the Permit Center will be a flat $100 charge. Comprehensive public handouts outlining permit costs across all divisions will be produced and made available to the public. Cumulative Impact The Maximus User Fee Study documents the full cost of providing each of the fee - related services provided by Planning and Building, Public Works and Fire Prevention. By annualizing and combining the results for each fee, Maximus identified the City's potential revenue for fees set at full cost covering. Based on the results of the User Fee Study, staff is recommending that fees be divided into two fee methodologies. Staff recommends establishing flat fees for the more routine project entitlements and permits thereby, providing the day -to -day customer with a predictable and reliable cost estimate for services. Staff also recommends maintaining a base rate plus time and materials charges for the more complex entitlements and permits thereby, providing for cost recovery while ensuring that all customers pay their fair share and small projects are not overburdened with excessive fees. Staff further recommends that not all fees be adopted on a full cost - covering basis. Those entitlements and permits that are primarily a public benefit were reduced below full cost recovery level. The following table details revenue projections for current, full cost recovery and recommended fee schedules. Division Current: Projected Annual Revenue at Current Fees Full Cost: Estimated Annual Revenue at Full Cost Recovery Recommended: Estimated Annual Revenue at Recommended Fees Planning $ 289,000 $ 601,000 $ 433,689 Public Works $ 318,000 $ 655,000 $ 567,529 Building $ 2,297,000 $ 2,084,000 $ 2,084,000 Fire Prevention $ 147,000 $ 448,000 $ 440,000 Totals: $ 3,051,000 $ 3,788,000 $ 3,525,218 Honorable Mayor and September 5, 2006 Councilmembers Page 6 MUNICIPAL CODE CROSS REFERENCE Alameda Municipal Code Section 30 -26 is affected by this staff report. The Master Fee Resolution No. 12191, referenced in Section 30 -26 would be amended. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is statutorily exempt per CEQA Section 15273 — Rates, Tolls, Fares, and Charges. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the Resolutions to Amend the Master Fee Resolution No. 12191 to revise and streamline the Planning & Building Department, Public Works Department and Fire Department Fee Schedules. By: Respectfully Submitted, Cath /,. oodbury Plan ing and Building Director Matt Naclerio Public Works Director Jim Christiansen Fire Chief Grego Building Attachments: 1. Fee Comparisons Current and Recommended 2. Current Master Fee Sheets 3. Proposed Master Fee Sheets On File in the City Clerk's Office: Maximus /City of Alameda User Fee Study Final Report City of ALAMEDA USER FEE STUDY PROPOSED FEE REVISIONS FIRE °PREVENTION Fee or Service Name / Description Current Fee Proposed Fee A -3 Occupant Load of 50 to 299 without a Stage $ 125 $ 264 A -2.1, Occupant Load of 300 or more without a Stage $ - $ 264 A -2 Occupant Load of less than 1000 with a Stage $ 125 $ 264_ A -1 Occupant Load of 1000 or more with a Stage $ 125 $ 264 Group B Occupancies: 1 -2,500 SF $ 63 $ 192 Group B Occupancies: 2,501 -5,000 SF $ 63 $ 264 Group B Occupancies: each additional 2,500 SF $ 63 $ 72 Group E -1 Occupancies (Elem Schools) $ 125 $ 480 Group E -1 Occupancies (Jr High or Middle Schools) $ 125 $ 696 Group E -1 Occupancies (High Schools) $ 125 $ 1,417 Group E -2 Occupancies $ 125 $ 156 Group E -3 Occupancies (Non residential day care) or any residential bldg use for day care in excess 12 children) $ 125 $ 156 Group E -1 Occupancies (Public Elem Schools) $ 125 $ 120 Group E -1 Occupancies (Public Jr High or Middle Schools) $ 125 $ 174 Group E -1 Occupancies (Public High Schools) $ 125 $ 354 Group E -2 Occupancies (Public) $ 125 $ 39 Group H -1, H -2, H -3 Occupancies (1 -2,500 SF) $ 63 $ 91 Group H -1, H -2, H -3 Occupancies (each additional 2,500 SF) $ 63 $ 36 Group 11.1 Occupancies (1 -2,500 SF) $ 125 $ 156 Group 11.1 Occupancies (each addition! 2,500 SF) $ 125 $ 72 Group 11.2 Occupancies $ 125 $ 156 Group 12 Occupancies $ 125 $ 228 Group 13 Occupancies $ 125 $ 372 Group M Occupancies $ 63 $ 156 Group R -1 3 -10 Units $ 63 $ 192 Group R -1 11 -20 units $ 125 $ 228 Group R -1 21 -30 units $ 250 $ 336 Group R -1 31 -60 units $ 250 $ 408 Group R -1 61 -90 units $ 375 $ 552 Group R -1 >90 units $ 500 $ 696 Group S -1 Occupancies $ 63 $ 264 Group S -2 Occupancies $ 63 $ 264 Group S -3 Occupancies $ 63 $ 192 Group S -4 Occupancies $ 63 $ 264 Group S -5 Occupancies (hanger) $ 63 $ 264 Marinas $ - $ 408 PLAN CHECKING / PERMITS Prebuild Conferences $ 125 $144/hr Fire Alarm $ 125 $ 147 Fire Sprinkler - New < 20 heads $ 188 $ 216 Fire Sprinkler - New 20 -200 heads $ 250 $ 288 Fire Sprinkler - New 20 -200 heads (each head) $ 1 $ 1 Fire Sprinkler - New >200 heads $ 375 $ 432 Fire Sprinkler - New >200 heads (each head) $ 1 $ 1 Fire Sprinkler - TI < 20 heads $ 125 $ 144 Fire Sprinkler - TI 20 -200 heads $ 188 $ 216 Fire Sprinkler - TI 20 -200 heads (each head) $ - $ 1 Fire Sprinkler - TI >200 heads $ 250 $ 288 Fire Underground $ 250 $ 288 Fire Hydrants $ 25 $ 128 Each Additional Fire Hydrant $ 25 $ 25 Standpipes $ 250 $ 288 Standpipes Each Additional Outlet $ 10 $ 12 Suppression System - Hood $ 188 $ 216 Suppression System - Agents $ 250 $ 288 TANKS Install AGST <= 2K gals $ 125 $ 144 Attachment #1 Agenda Item #5 -B 9 -5 -06 City of ALAMEDA USER FEE STUDY PROPOSED FEE REVISIONS FIRE:. PREVENTION Fee or Service Name / Description Current Fee Proposed Fee A -3 Occupant Load of 50 to 299 without a Stage $ 125 $ 264 TANKS Install AGST > 2K gals $ 250 $ 288 TANKS Install UGST $ 375 $ 432 TANKS Install Piping only $ 125 $ 144 TANKS Remove Residential $ 188 $ 216 TANKS Remove Commercial $ 375 $ 432 TENT PERMITS 201 to 400 square feet (in total) $ 250 $ 48 401 to 1500 square feet (in total) $ 375 $ 72 1501 to 15,000 square feet (in total) $ - $ 144 15,001 to 30,000 square feet (in total) $ - $ 288 Over 30,000 square feet (in total) $ - $ 432 SPECIAL PERMITS Burn & Weld (routine welding operation) $ 125 $ 144 Film Permit $ 63 $ 279 Fireworks - Display $ 125 $ 415 Fireworks - Theatrical $ 125 $ 415 Fireworks - Special Effects $ 125 $ 415 Fumigation and storage $ 125 $ 144 Carnivals, Fairs & Special Events $ - $ 415 STANDBY FIRE PERSONNEL AND /OR EQUIPMENT (AT HOURLY RATE) Equipment without staff $ 72 $80 /hr Standard Fire Engine without staff $ 150 $165/hr Staff Vehicle without staff $ 35 $39 /hr Quint/Ladder Truck without staff $ 200 $221/hr Technical Rescue without staff $ - $110 /hr Fire Boat without staff $ - $110 /hr Ambulance $ - $83 /hr Support Materials (variable) At cost per type and amount required At cost per type and amount required Personnel Per current contract salary including benefits Per current contract salary including benefits MISC FEES Copies of Fire Reports $ 1 $ 1 NEW FEES FALSE FIRE ALARM FEES 2nd false alarm 3rd false alarm 4th ea additional Excessive or Malicious residential False Alarms Causing Response of Fire Apparatus (per calaendar quarter) $ 63 $ 125 $250 $375 Excessive or Malicious Commercial False Alarms Causing Response of Fire Apparatus (per calaendar quarter) $ 125 $ 250 $375 $375 Response due to 'Failure to Notify' the Fire Department when working on or testing Sprinkler or Fire Alarm System $ 125 $ 125 $125 $125 City of ALAMEDA USER FEE STUDY PROPOSED FEE REVISIONS PLANNING Fee or Service Name / Description Current Fee Proposed Fee General Plan Amendments (Diagram or Text) $ 600 plus T &M $ 1,000 plus T &M Amendments to the Alameda Municipal Code $ 600 plus T &M $ 1,000 plus T &M Zone Change $ 600 plus T &M $ 1,000 plus T &M Master Plan or Amendment for Mixed Use Planned Development $ 600 plus T &M $ 1,000 plus T &M Planned Development or Amendment to Planned Development $ 300 plus T &M $ 500 plus T &M Development Agreement $ 600 plus T &M $ 1,000 plus T &M Periodic Review of Development Agreement $ 300 plus T &M $ 300 plus T &M Variance $ 300 plus T &M $ 1,000 flat fee Exception (administrative) $ 100 plus T &M $ 200 flat fee Use Permit $ 300 plus T &M $ 1,500 flat fee Design Review - Major (New Commercial, residential additions over 80sf) $ 300 plus T &M $ 1,700 flat fee Design Review - Minor- Routed (e.g. garages, additions under 80 sf, and all other signs) $ 150 plus T &M $ 200 flat fee Design Review - Minor Over - the - Counter (e.g. windows, replacement In -kind, change of sign face or copy) $ 150 flat fee $ 30 flat fee Extension of Time (Use Permit, Variance, Design Review, MX Development Plan Parcel / Tentative Map Extension) $ 100 plus T &M $ 200 plus T &M Parcel / Tentative Map Amendment $ 300 plus T &M $ 600 flat fee Parcel Map (up to 4 Iots) $ 600 plus T &M $ 2,040 flat fee Subdivision Map 5-25 lots $ 600 plus T &M $ 5,500 flat fee Subdivision Map >25 lots (incl. Condo conversions) $ 600 plus T &M $ 1,000 plus T &M Lot Line Adjustment $ 150 plus T &M $ 400 flat fee - Environmental Review -Categorical Exemptions (does not include County Clerk fee) $ 148 plus T &M Included in cost of entitlement Environmental Review - Initial Study, Negative Declaration, EIR (does not include County Clerk & Fish & Game fees) $ 600 plus T &M $ 600 plus T &M and consultant COSt +10% Mitigation Monitoring $ - deposit $ - T &M Appeal to Planning Board $ 100 flat fee $ 100 flat fee Appeal to the City Council $ 100 flat fee $ 100 flat fee Home Occupation $ 150 flat fee $ - 100 flat fee Request for payment of parking In lieu fee $ 300 plus T &M $ 300 plus T &M Zoning Compliance Determination $ 100 plus T &M $ 100 flat fee Deed Restriction $ 50 flat fee $ 200 flat fee Performance Agreement $ 100 plus T &M $ 450 flat fee Certificate of Compliance $ 150 plus T &M $ 150 plus T &M Demolition Certificate of Approval by HAB (Principal and accessory structures; removal of protected trees) $ 150 plus T &M $ 200 plus T &M Demolition Certificate of Approval by Staff (accessory structures;) $ 150 lus T &M p $ 400 flat fee Designation of Historical Sign or Monument $ 150 plus T &M $ 200 plus T &M Changes in Historical Building Study List Classification $ 150 plus T &M $ 200 plus T &M Alteration to Historical Monuments $ 150 plus T &M $ 200 plus T &M Traffic Study /Review 1 &M & Consultant T &M City of ALAMEDA USER FEE STUDY PROPOSED FEE REVISIONS ENGINEERING Fee or Service Name / Description Current Fee Proposed Fee Deposit Property Development (If Engineering review is necessary) Apportionment Processing/ Review T & M T & M Assessment District Formation Fee T & M T & M Planned Development Agreement T & M T & M Planned Development Agreement Amendment T & M T & M Final Development Plan T & M T & M Parking in -lieu Fee Determination T & M T & M Review of Master Plans/Development Plans: T & M T & M Master Plan/Amendment T & M T & M Development Plan/Amendment T & M T & M Development Agreement/Amendment T & M T & M General Plan Amendment T & M T & M Environmental Review (including Traffic Studies) T & M T & M Right of Way Permits costs Include permit review & 2 inspections Concrete - Sidewalk Repair /InstalVRepl., 0 to 20 L.F.. 54 - Concrete - Sidewalk Repair /InstalVRepl., 21 -50 L.F.. 54 25 Concrete - Sidewalk Repair /InstalVRepl., 51 -200 L.F.. 54 50 Concrete - Sidewalk Repair /Replacement >200L.F. 54 300 Curb Cut/Driveway - New (each) 54 200 Encroachment Permit - Construction T & M 520 Encroachment Permit - Permanent T & M 390 Encroachment Permit - Temporary (inc. debris box) 15 65 Excavation Permit - Single location 54 54 Excavation Permit - Each Signalized Street Intersection 54 195 Excavation Permit Insp. & Processing - Per Block 54 290 Addiiional Inspections T & M • These rates reflect 1st year of a 3 year phase in to achieve 100% cost recovery Map Review / Engineering Applications Includes two review cycles Lot Line Adjustment T & M 1,500 Parcel Map (1-4 Iots) T & M 9,585 Tentative Map Review- Subdivision (5 -25 lots) T & M 12,966 Final Map Review - Subdivision 5 to 25 lots T & M 7,323 Tentative Map Review - Subdivision >25 lots T & M T & M ' Final Map Review- Subdivision >25 lots T & M T & M ' Easement Application T & M T & M Additional Reviews T & M Plan Review of On /Off Site Public Improvements Includes two review cycles Commercial < 1Ac T & M 2,335 Commercial 1 to 5 Ac T & M 8,170 Commercial 6 to 20 Ac T & M 8,490 Commercial >20 Ac T & M T & M Residential 1 to 41ots T & M 4,630 15,000 Residential 5 to 25 lots T & M 8,605 10,000 Residential >25 lots T & M T & M 1,000 Additional Reviews T & M 5,000 Inspection On /Off Site Public Improvements Includes Grading and SWPPP inspections Commercial < 1Ac T & M 1,337 Commercial 1 to 5 Ac T & M 2,450 City of ALAMEDA USER FEE STUDY PROPOSED FEE REVISIONS ENGINEERING Fee or Service Name / Description Current Fee Proposed Fee Deposit Property Development Commercial 6 to 20 Ac T & M 4,810 Commercial >20 Ac T & M T & M Residential 1 to 4 lots T & M 1,705 Residential 5 to 25 lots T & M 2,540 10,000 Residential >25 lots T & M T & M 5,000 Permit Review - Plan Review - Residential RemodeVAddition T & M 260 Plan Review - Residential RemodeVAddition - mulit family T & M 395 Plan Review - Commercial - multi building T & M 395 Plan Review - Commercial - one building T & M 260 Storm Water Pollution Control Design Review & Inspection SWPPP - < 1 ac. 1,910 These fees are now SWPPP 1 -5 ac. 2,540 luded in the inspection SWPPP > 20 ac. 3,810 and plan review SWPPP 5 -20 ac 3,175 rates Special Events/Filming Permits: (If PW involvement Is required) Fees waived for non profit or public benefit events Banner Permit - per banner /per location install remove of banner 200 200 Block Party Permit 20 20 Boat Show Permit T & M T & M Film Permit (General) T & M T & M Street closure T & M T & M Bridge closure T & M T & M Rental of City Property T & M T & M Race, Walk -a -thon, parade permit 100 100 Relocation Permit (housing moving) T & M T & M Street Fair Permit T & M T & M Tent Permit Under 4,500 sq. ft. T & M T & M 4,500 sq. ft. or Greater T & M T & M Street Tree Installation 15 gal. Tree, root box, fertilizer, stakes and labor 201 238 w /concrete removal 240 330 Street Tree Removal at property owner request - varies by size T & M • these prices are 50% of the full cost of service. General Services Appeals to CounciVCommissions 100 (Consistent with Planning & Building Department Fees) T &M - Time and Materials (Engineering time charges per most current Cost Allocation Plan.) per estimate CITY OF ALAMEDA MASTER FEES 2006 - 2007 DEPARTMENT EXHIBIT A Page CITY CLERK 2 FIRE DEPARTMENT 3 -7 POLICE DEPARTMENT Police Services Animal Control 8 -9 10 - 11 FINANCE DEPARTMENT 12 (RECREATION & PARKS DEPARTMENT 13 -15 (GOLF ENTERPRISE FUND 16 -17 PUBLIC WORKS 18 21 PLANNING & BUILDING DEPARTMENT Planning Permit Center Affordable Housing 22 -24 25 -29 29 - 30 Administratively revised for 3.2% CPI effective 7/1/06 Adjustments greater than the CPI and new fees are scheduled for approval by the City Council. Proposed fee changes that are subject to Council approval are noted herein. Attachment #2 Agenda Item #5 -B 9 -5 -06 8/16/2006 Master Fees - Revised 7/06 1 $221 $221 $51 $2151 $721 CITY CLERK Subscription: 2006 -07 FEES City Council Agenda City Council Minutes City Charter Alameda Municipal Code Annual Supplement - Municipal Code Master Fees - Revised 7/06 8/16/2006 2 FIRE DEPARTMENT Group A Occupancies Group B Occupancies Group E Occupancies Group F Occupancies Group H Occupancies Group I Occupancies Group M Occupancies R -1 3 -10 Units R -1 11 -20 units R -1 21 -30 units R -1 31 -60 units R -1 61 - 90 units R -1> 90 units Hourly (1 hour minimum) Hourly (1/2 hour minimum) Hourly (1 hour minimum) Hourly (1/2 hour minimum) Hourly (1/2 hour minimum) Hourly (1 hour minimum) Hourly (1/2 hour minimum) Hourly (1/2 hour minimum) 1 hour minimum 1.5 hours minimum 2 hours minimum 3 hours minimum 4 hours minimum State License Required Inspections Hourly (1/2 hour minimum) Group S Occupancies Hourly (1/2 hour minimum) Marinas Hourly (1/2 hour minimum) Each additional callback Inspection after one re- inspection Hourly (1 hour minimum) Rebuild Conferences Hourly (1 hour minimum) Plan Check Fire Alarm Fire Sprinkler - New < 20 heads Fire Sprinkler - New 20 -200 heads Fire Sprinkler - New >200 heads Fire Sprinkler - TI <20 heads Fire Sprinkler - TI 20 -200 heads Fire Sprinkler - TI >200 heads Fire Underground Hydrants Standpipes 5% of building permit fee or 1 hour, whichever is greater Hourly +$2 per device 1.5 hours 2 hours + $1 per head 3 Hours +$1 per head 1 hour 1.5 hours + $1 per head 2 hours + $1 per head 2 hours Underground + $26 each 2 hours + $10 each outlet Suppression System - Hood Suppression System - Agents 1.5 hours 2 hours Reinspections Investigative Fee (See Permit Center Fee Schedule) Burn & Weld Explosive - to possess, store, sell, dispose, transport or use Fireworks - Display Fireworks - Theatrical Fireworks - Special Effects Fumigation Master Fees - Revised 7/06 Hourly Hourly (1 hr minimum) Hourly Hourly (1 hr minimum) Hourly (1 hr minimum) Hourly (1 hr minimum) Hourly (1 hr minimum) 8/16/2006 3 FIRE DEPARTMENT CONTINUED Tanks Install AGST < =2K gals Tanks Install AGST >2K gals Tanks Install UGST Tanks Install Piping only Tanks Remove Residential Tanks Remove Commercial Tents <300 Occ Load Tents > =300 Occ Load Tents Additional <300 Occ Load Hourly (1 hr minimum) Hourly (2 hrs minimum) Hourly (3 hr minimum) Hourly (1 hr minimum) Hourly (1.5 hr minimum) Hourly (3 hr minimum) Hourly (2 hr minimum) Hourly (3 hr minimum) .5 hour each additional Film Permit .5 hour minimum FPB Personnel Services & Cost Recovery Per current contract salary, including benefits /overhead Copies of Fire Reports .94 per page Fire report research by incident/type or address or addresses, etc. Hourly (1.5 hr minimum) Equipment without staff $80 per hour Standard Fire Engine without staff $165 per hour Staff Vehicle without staff $39 per hour Technical Rescue without staff $165 per hour Quint/Ladder Truck without staff $221 per hour Ambulance $83 per hour Fire Boat/Rescue Boat without staff $110 per hour Support Materials (variable) At cost per type and amount required Personnel Master Fees - Revised 7/06 Per current contract salary including benefits 8/16/2006 4 FIRE DEPARTMENT CONTINUED Ambulance Charges:* 12 Lead EKG Activated Charcoal (25 grams) Adenosine (Adenocard) (6 mg) Airway /Nasal Airway /Oral Albuterol (3 ml vial) ALS Emergency with ALS Service Amiodarone (300 mg) Armboard -Long Armboard -Short Asherman Chest Seal Aspirin, Children's Chewable (ASA -162 mg.) Atropine sulfate (1 mg) Atrovent BAG Valve Mask Bandages triangular Bedpan Benadryl Diphenydramine HCI (50 mg) Blood draw tube /needle Blood Set BLS Emergency Response charge Burn Sheet Calcium Chloride Preload (1 gm) Cannula (Nasal) Cervical Collar Combi -Tube (adult & adult small) Cold /Hot pack CPAP Mask & Tube (includes generator) Defibrillation BLS /ALS (Supplies) Dextrose 25% PEDI (12.5 gm) Dextrose 50% (D50) (25 mg) Disposable Blanket Dopamine Hydroxide (400 mg /5 % d5w) Dressing Major Dry Run ALS (plus supplies) Dry Run BLS (plus supplies) EKG Electrodes ALS EKG Monitor Elastic Bandage End Tidal CO2 Detector Epinephrine 1:1,000 (1 mg /30cc) Epinephrine 1:10,000 (1 mg) Extra Attendant Glucagon Hydrochloride (1 mg) Clucometer Test Supplies Glucose (31 gm) Head Bed $28.75 $35.00 $78.82 $6.98 $6.98 $35.00 $930.40 $60.00 $4.00 $4.00 $15.25 $5.00 $15.23 $16.00 $52.00 $7.00 $7.00 $13.00 $23.70 $18.80 $599.00 $23.00 $16.08 $13.00 $47.00 $82.00 $13.00 $95.00 $92.00 $21.14 $21.14 $29.00 $30.00 $7.00 $465.00 $299.00 $28.75 $78.82 $6.13 $32.85 $19.00 $20.00 $49.91 $124.89 $5.00 $12.91 $18.00 Master Fees - Revised 7/06 5 8/16/2006 FIRE DEPARTMENT CONTINUED I.V. Catheter $19.00 I.V. Start Kit $19.00 Infection Control $15.33 Injection supplies $14.00 Intraosseous Needle $44.00 Intubation Supplies ALS $51.17 Ipratroprium Bromide (Atrovent) (500 mcg /2.5 cc) $13.29 Lasix, Furosemide (40 mg) $20.00 Lidocaine 200 2% $20.00 Limb Restraints $39.00 Mask Pocket $17.61 Meconium Aspirator (Baby) $10.22 Midazolam HCI (versed) (2 mg) $20.00 Mileage (charge per mile) $20.00 Morphine Sulfate (AstramorphPF) (10 mg) $14.60 Multi -drip IV Tubing $18.80 Naloxone Hcl, (Narcan) (4 mg /10cc) $23.00 Nebulizer (Hand held) $22.50 Nebulizer (Mask) $22.50 Nitroglycerin Spray (Nitrolingual) $21.63 Non - rebreather Mask $13.00 Normal Saline IV Solution 1L $27.00 Normal Saline Solution I.V. Sol. 1L $12.00 OB Pack $59.41 Oxygen $68.00 Pleural Decompression Kit $32.85 PTV Kit $69.00 Pulse Oximeter (Probe) ALS $35.00 Sodium Bicarbonate $20.00 Spinal Immobilization $50.00 Splint Arm (disposable) $12.00 Splint Leg (disposable) $12.00 Sterile Water $12.00 Suction Tube /tip sup $20.00 Synchronized Cardioversion (Supplies) $92.00 Syringe Sterile, 20cc /Greater $5.00 Transcutaneous Pacing (Supplies) $92.00 Universal Precautions $13.49 Urinal $2.88 Valium, Diazepan (10 mg) $15.87 Wait Time $53.00 D5W IV Solution 1,000 cc $17.61 *NOTE: Ambulance rates are established by contract with Alameda County EMS and are adjusted each calendar year by the cost of living index formula. Rates are set to recover insurance and medical premiums and are similar to ambulance rates throughout Alameda County. Master Fees - Revised 7/06 8/16/2006 6 POLICE DEPARTMENT Taxi Cab Annual Franchise fees $968 per cab False alarm fees 3 -5 6+ $64 per incident $129 per incident Special officer permit - new $64 Special officer permit - renewal $52 Carry concealed weapon permit - new $96 Carry concealed weapon permit - renewal $47 Photographs 3 x 5 $5 each Massage tech permit $65 Massage parlor permit $65 Fingerprint 1st card $22 each additional card $5 Fingerprint - noncertified school employees $22 Livescan Resident $22 Non - Resident $54 Clearance letter Lost permit $12 $12 Police Report 1st five pages 30 cents per page each additional page 10 cents each Verification letter $12 Solicitor permit $65 Scofflaw*** $64 Firearm dealer license $288 Reinspection compliance fee $53 per hour Appeal fee $129 Administrative tow fee $109 Renewal fee $129 Crime Status Report $16 ** *Required that the scofflaw charge be paid in addition to payment in full of all fines outstanding Master Fees - Revised 7/06 8/16/2006 7 ANIMAL CONTROL Adoption Fees: Cat and dogs $27 Other (small animals such as bunnies /hamsters /rats) $5.00 - $10.00 Redemption fees with licenses: Cats - 1st incident $16 Dogs - 1st incident $43 Dogs - 2nd incident $88 Dogs - 3rd incident $160 Redemption fees without licenses: Cats - 1st incident $22 Dogs - 1st incident $65 Dogs - 2nd incident $87 Dogs - 3rd incident $143 Quarantine Fees (based on 10 days) $98 Euthanasia Fees: Cats $22 Dogs $32 Disposal Fee $10 Pick Up Service (home) $33 Vet Pick Up $155 per month Trap Rental: Deposit $38 Per Day - up to 14 days $2 Per Day - after 14 days $2 Board: Cats $g Dogs $g License Fee for Dogs and Cats: Three Years $38 Two Years $30 One Year $22 Nine Months $11 Six Months $7 Three Months $4 An additional fee of ten ($10.00) dollars shall be charged if the above mentioned license is not obtained within forty -five (45) days after the date requiring the license. Senior Citizen Fee - one -half of fees indicated above. Master Fees - Revised 7/06 8/16/2006 8 ANIMAL CONTROL CONTINUED Spay Neutered (Dogs): One Year $10 Two Years $15 Three Years $20 Late Charge $10 Duplicate $5 Spay /Neuter Fees: Cats $43 Dogs $86 Spay /Neuter Deposit: Cats Dogs No Deposit Required No Deposit Required Shot Clinic: Rabies $0 DHL (Dog) $0 FVRCP (Cat) $0 Rabies /Senior Citizen $0 Master Fees - Revised 7/06 8/16/2006 9 FINANCE DEPARTMENT Returned Check Charge $25 Annual Budget Report $28 Annual Audit Report $28 Attachment of Wages: Set Up Fee $7 Transaction Fee $1 Business License Listing Update $78 $32 Business License: Separate License for each place of Business $26 Minimum license for less than a full period: $25 or not less than 1/4 of the annual minimum fee for such category, whichever is greater Assignment or Transfer Fee Lost License Special Assessment Listing $26 Master Fees - Revised 7/06 $26 $78 per year per district 8/16/2006 10 RECREATION AND PARKS DEPARTMENT Adult Sports Softball: $640 - residential team fee $690 - non - resident team fee Basketball: Flag Football: $610 resident team fee $660 - non - resident team fee $598 - resident team fee $615 - non - resident team fee Aquatics: Swim Lessons - Resident Swim Lessons - Non - resident $6.00 each 1/2 hour session $60 - 2 week session $7.00 each 1/2 hour session $70 - 2 week session Public Swim: Youth Resident $1 Youth Nonresident $2 Adult Resident $2 Adult Nonresident $3.50 Classes: Basic Water Safety , Emergency Water Safety, Lifeguarding, Water Safety Instruction, Aquatic Course fees are set by Certification. the Red Cross. Various special interest adult classes (aqua exercise, water polo, etc.) Fees are arranged on a contractual basis Rentals *: $75 per hr. - 2 hr 1 pool - resident minimum $105 per hr. - 2 hr. 1 pool - non - resident minimum Each additional hour $55 per hour * $25 per hour non - resident fee Swim Teams Use Fee: Hourly Rate Facility Rentals (2 hour minimum), Recreation Centers - $11 per hour - youth $12 per hour - adult $12 per hour - youth (beginning January 2007) $13 per hour - adult (Beginning January 2007) Master Fees - Revised 7/06 $35 hour Alameda nonprofit meetings $45 hour Alameda nonprofit activities $85 hour private rentals /resident $110 hour private rentals /non - resident $125 hour commercial fundraising $300 cleaning & security deposit 8/16/2006 11 RECREATION AND PARKS DEPARTMENT CONTINUED Facility Rentals (2 hour minimum) Cont.: 115 per hour (2 hr. Min.) Mastick Social Hall (Resident) Grounds: Picnics 140 per hour (2 hr. Min.) (Non- resident) $300 - cleaning and security deposit $40 per hour when staff is not normally on duty Fields with picnic rental - resident with picnic rental - non - resident when staff not normally on duty - resident when staff not normally on duty - non - resident With Lights Private Rental/Tournament Lining fields (non - profit organizations and schools $35 per hour - 3 hour minimum (Resident) $55 per hour - 3 hour minimum (non- resident) $50 hour -large groups requiring extra svcs. $30 per hour $55 per hour $40 per hour $65 per hour $55 per hour $75 per hour $23 flat fee Hardball Field (College of Alameda) $75 per hour - Resident (3 hour minimum) $100 per hour - Non- resident (3 hour minimum) $75 per hour - Private rental/Tournament (3 hour minimum plus $250 flat fee) Tournaments: Normal field charges plus flat tournament fee of $200. Fee for charity events - $50 Field Preparation (fee based on maintenance worker's overtime salary) Once a day (private rental) Twice a day (private rental) $65 per field $90 per field Master Fees - Revised 7/06 8/16/2006 12 RECREATION AND PARKS DEPARTMENT CONTINUED Courts: Local youth & schools $28 per day per court Non Profit $6 per hour per court $44 per day per court Adult Resident $8 per hour per court $54 per day per court Others $84 er day y per court Run for the Parks Entry Fee - Set by Race Committee - fee shall be one that will realize a profit. Tennis: Adult group lessons $11 per hour Junior group lessons $11 per hour Private lessons $42 per hour City Tennis Tournament - Set by Tournament Committee - fee shall be one that will realize a profit. Youth: $125 Week - Hidden Day Camp Cove $140 Week - Trails End $65 Week - Hidden Cove Extended Care $55 Week - Trails End Extended Care Preschool $4.25 per hour Youth Sports: Fall, winter, spring - Football $75 Season - Basketball $75 Season - Soccer $60 Season Additional non - resident fee for all youth sports $10 Other: Fun Faire Booth Filming & Photography Commercial & Personal Photography Master Fees - Revised 7/06 $75 non - profit participant $125 profit participant $100 still photography $400 filming /taping 8/16/2006 13 GOLF ENTERPRISE FUND Alameda Resident Preferential (annually) $25 Jack Clark & Earl Fry Courses (18 -hole) Twilight (2 pm ST /3 pm DST) Late Twilight (4 pm ST /6 pm DST)` 9 -holes (1st 2 hrs of the day back 9 only) Juniors Mif Albright Seniors Juniors M - TH Resident $23 M - TH Non -res. $30 M- TH Sr. Res. $18 M- TH Senior Nonresident $23 F, SSH Resident $27 F, SSH Nonresident $35 M -TH Resident $18 M -TH Nonresident $23 F,SSH Resident $19 F,SSH Nonresident $25 M -TH Resident $13 M -TH Non -res $16 F,SSH Resident $14 F,SSH Non -res $18 M - TH Resident $16 M - TH Nonresident $20 F, SSH Resident $18 F, SSH Nonresident $23 M - TH Resident F,SSH of M - TH Nonresident F (after twilight) $1 $8 M - F Res and Nonres $9 S,S, H $11 Second 9 Replay $7 M - TH $7 Second 9 Replay $6 Resident $1 Nonresident $4 Second 9 Replay - Nonresident $5 Monthly Tickets (Monday - Thursday After 4:00 p.m.: Residents - Senior $85 Resident under 62 years of age $100 Nonresident (plus $3 surcharge per round) $130 Golf Carts Monday - Friday 18 Or 9 holes Saturday, Sunday, Holiday Monday - Thursday (Seniors) Single, Monday - Sunday Twilight Master Fees - Revised 7/06 $28 $28 $22 $18 $18 8/16/2006 14 GOLF ENTERPRISE FUND CONTINUED Driving Range Small Bucket $4 Medium Bucket $6 Large Bucket $8 Golf Tournaments Monday - Thursday $30 + $6 = $36 + $14 = $50 $50 Fri, Sat, Sun, Holiday $35 + $6 - $41 + $14 = $55 $55 Shotgun (Clark Course only) $5.00 ($750) per player set up fee Mon - Fri only (based on a 150 player minimun, 18 hole only) GOLF CART MANDATORY ON FRIDAY, SATURDAY, SUNDAY AND HOLIDAYS FOR GOLF TOURNAMENTS Fees are set by City Council approval based on Golf Commission Recommendation. Master Fees - Revised 7/06 8/16/2006 15 PUBLIC WORKS Fees noted in red or highlighted in red boxes are subject to Council Review. Maps & Prints: 500 scale - Alameda (color - 36" x 84 ") $22 500 scale - Alameda black and white $11 1000 scale - Alameda (color - 18" x 44 ") $15 1000 scale - Alameda (black and white) $11 500 scale - BFI 22 x 30 $11 Aerials $11 plus $10 mailing Truck route, bike route $2 Traffic volume data sheets, radar speed data sheets $5 Assessor's parcel maps (whole page available at Alameda County Assessor's Office) $1.00 per portion Sanitary Sewer Plan (18 x 22) $16 Storm Drain Plans (18 x 22) $16 Other Prints (22 x 30) $22 Plans and Specifications: Standard Plans $30 Bike Plans $30 Standard Subdivision Improvement Specs $30 General Services: Research of Records (no charge for first 15 minutes) Transportation Operational Requests - nonsafety related Transportation Technical Team/Transportation Committee -- Request for or appeal of actions* *Fee is refundable if enacted /approved Recycling/Trash Exception Application* $86 per hour Time and Materials $60 $86 * The Public Works Director shall set a deposit schedule. Time & Materials - Engineering time charged per cost allocation plan, approximately $99.82 /hour Master Fees - Revised 7/06 DEPOSIT * 8/16/2006 16 PUBLIC WORKS CONTINUED DEPOSIT Permit Center Applications:������------------| IBuilding Permit - Combination Building Permit (Non-Development) : P�nCheck 'Roo�enda|RomodoKAdd�onoing�fami� $260 + T&M � � I A P�n Check 'Ron�onU�RomodoKAdd�onmuU�fumi� $400 + T&M � ' PIan Check - Commercial - multi building $400 + T&M : Plan Check 'Commomia building $260 + T&M ! ' | Supplemental T&M � " I Development Applications ^ . ' Planned Development T&M Planned Development Amendment T&M Final Development PIan T&M Parking in-Iieu Fee Determination T&M �����.' ����'_—___—_—_—_—___—_—___—___—_—_—___—_____—_� !(Engineering will be at time and materials) I ^ Master T&M ~~ / ' | | Meo�rP�nAmondmon T&M °~ ' | Development Plan (AIso see Property Development category) T&M ** i ` omm�pmoruP|anAmondmoma T&M °° � i oovo|opmontAnmomonb/Amondmork (Also see Property Development Category) T&M ~~ 1 General PIan Amendment T&M ^~ ' . | ' Environmental Review T&M � | Traffic Review T&� i ^ —�_�_�—�_�_�—�—���—�-----�—�—�___�������_____������� :Concrete Permits . y 8 �owakmpain�000inn� Ou`2O|inoarfeo $O | ^ _ • ________..—.._.._..—...._.._..-----..-----------...$25 : Sidewaik repair/replace install 51 to 200 linearfeet $75 1 Sidewalk repair/replace install > 200 linear fee $300 I LCurb ——_—_''_'.�—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—___——*2Oo —_—_—_—_—_ . _�d���.--�m ��m���� 156_ 'R�h�of�xoyPemm�� �����---------------------: / V . Encroachment Permits Construction >1 week $520 1 Encroachment Permits - Temporary <1 wee $65 ** | • Encroachment Permits - Permanent $380 °° / sxuovabonPermit '|ndvdooinopo�ion $28O Per Block 1 i Excavation Permit - Point Repair $54 ^ : Each signalized intersection - additional charge $195 ^ 1 00% recovery to be phased in over three years: l ^ FY Intersection ' � 290/sig. | FY 08/09 520/block 390/sig. Intersection **The Public Works Director shall set a deposit schedule T&M = Time & Materials - Engineering time charged per Cost Allocation Plan, approximately $99.82/hour Master Fees - Revised 7/06 8/16/2006 17 PUBLIC WORKS CONTINUED Property Development - Applications may be reviewed by City staff or by consultant hired by the City at cost plus 10% Deposit is $10,000 unless otherwise specified Lot Line Adjustment Parcel Map (1 to 4 lots) Tentative /Final Map review Assessment District Formation $1,500 $2,500 T &M (or Consultant Costs + 10 %) T &M (or Consultant Costs + 10 %) T &M (o I On /Off site Public Improvement plan review - Commercial > 5 acres On /Off site Public Improvement plan review - Commercial < 5 acres On /Off site Public Improvement Inspection - Commercial > 5 acres On /Off site Public Improvement Inspection - Commercial < 5 acres On /Off site Public Improvement Plan Review - Residential >25 Lots On /Off site Public Improvement Plan Review - Residential 5 to 25 Lots On /Off site Public Improvement Plan Review - Residential < 5 Lots On /Off site Public Improvement Inspection - Residential >26 Lots On /Off site Improvement Inspection - Residential 1 to 25 Lots r Consultant- Costs + 10 %) $6,900 $1,725 $1,100 T &M T &M $3,675 T &M $700 DEPOSIT $4,000 $2,500 Grading Grading Grading Grading Grading Grading Permit Inspection Permit Inspection Permit Inspection Permit Inspection - Permit Inspection - Permit Inspection - - Commercial < 1 Acre - Commercial 1 to 10 Acres - Commercial > 10 Acres Residential 1 -4 Lots Residential 5 to 25 Lots Residential 26 to 50 Lots $325 $575 T &M $450 $575 $700 j Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) Applies to all development sites SWPPP <1 acre $1,900 I SWPPP 1 -5 acres $2,550 j SWPPP 5 - 20 Acres $3,200 - -•- SWPPP > 25 Acres -- ------------ - - - - -- $3,800 Special Event Permits Not all special events will require review by Public Works. Review determination will be made at time of application. Fees will be waived for nonprofit or public benefit events. 1 Banner Permit - per banner /per location for install removal of banner $200 Block Party Permit - Requiring Engineering Review $20 I Boat Show Permit - requiring Engineering Review T &M j Film Permit T &M Non- profit/Still Photography - street closure T &M All others - street closure T &M All Bridge closures T &M Rental of City Property (to be determined) Race, Walk -a -thon, parade permit T &M Relocation Permit (housing moving) T &M Street Fair Permit T &M Tent Permit Under 4,500 sq. ft. T &M Over 4,500 sq. ft. T &M Permits - Solid Was" " Recycling " - - - Basic fee $600 i I I I I I Reporting fees ($100 per hour) Program Fee Impact Mitigation Fee Performance Security Bond $100 minimum due at filing $8.67 per ton hauled $2.86 per ton hauled $95 T &M - Time and Materials (Engineering time charges per Cost Allocation Plan, approximately $99.82/hr. Master Fees - Revised 7/06 8/16/2006 18 PUBLIC WORKS CONTINUED DEPOSIT Citywide Development Fee Program: Application to Public Works Director for Fee Adjustment Appeal of Public works Director's Decision T &M T &M CDF Fee Schedule By prior Council action, the CDF Fees are automatically updated in July based on CIP LAND USE CATEGORY CITY DISTRICT West End Northern Waterfront Central! East End Bay Farm Infill CDF Fees per Residential Unit SF Low $3,740 $3,486 $3,482 $2,370 SF Med $3,271 $3,066 $3,062 $2,174 Duplex $3,158 $2,929 $2,923 $1,923 MF $2,908 $2,679 $2,675 $1,675 CDF Fees per unit of Non- Residential Building Space Work/Live $2,771 $2,579 $2,576 $1,742 CDF Fees per square foot of Non - Residential Building Space $0.67 General Industrial $3.21 $2.73 $233 Retail $4.85 $4.13 $4.12 $1.02 Commercial/Office $4.65 $3.98 $3.97 $1.08 Warehouse $1.86 $1.58 $1.58 $0.39 Other Uses (Not Listed Above) 1. Non - transportation Fee $0.75 $0.75 $0.75 $0.75 2. Transportation Fee (Cost per vehicle trip generated) $1,330 $1,088 $1,083 $33 T &M - Time and Materials - Engineering time charged per Cost Allocation Plan, approximately $99.82 /hour Master Fees - Revised 7/06 $1,500 $2,500 8/16/2006 19 PUBLIC WORKS CONTINUED DEPOSIT Maintenance Activities: Street tree installations (includes trees, root box, fertilizer, stake and labor) 15 gallon size trees $210 15 gallon size trees including concrete removal for tree opening $250 Street tree removal upon property owners request (varies depending upon size of tree) T &M Parking Meter Rate on- street (by Council action) No Parking signs for construction /events One sign required for each parking space or 18 feet of curb ** $1.00 per hour $2.00 each Curb painting $55 set up, plus $10 per liner food Painting Park Crosses (nonbusiness areas) one space (including two crosses) $100 per space each additional cross installed at the same time $30 Sign Installation (non - specialty) Sign Installation (specialty) T &M (per cost estimate) T &M Lower Sewer Lateral Installation /Placement House Number Painting Permit (per cost estimate) T &M T &M ** The Public Works Director shall set a deposit schedule T &M = Time & Materials Master Fees - Revised 7/06 8/16/2006 20 PLANNING & BUILDING DEPARTMENT Fees shown are from the 2005 -2006 fee schedule (with the exception of prices for copies, flags, and fees for special event permits.) All other fees are subject to change pending Council review. PERMIT CENTER Staff time charged per Cost Allocation Plan for all departments Public Works Inspection Fees - Deposit for Staff time to be determined by Public Works Director GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING APPLICATIONS DEPOSIT Amendments: Amendment to the General Plan Diagram or Text $600 + T &M $2,500 Amendments to text of Chapter 30 "Development Regulations" of the Alameda Municipal Code $600 + T &M $2,500 Rezoning: Rezoning to add a PD overlay $600 + T &M $2,500 All other rezonings $600 + T &M $2,500 Master Plan /Development Plan: Master Plan $600 + T &M $2,500 Master Plan Amendment $600 + T &M $2,500 Development Plan $600 + T &M $2,500 Development Plan Amendment $300 + T &M $1,500 Extension of Development Plan not yet vested $300 + T &M $1,500 Planned Development: Planned Development $300 + T &M $1,500 Planned Development Amendment $300 + T &M $1,500 Final Development Plan $300 + T &M $1,500 Development Agreement: Development Agreement Periodic Review of Development Agreement $600 + T &M $300 + T &M $2,500 $1,500 Variance: Variance $300 + T &M Charge for each additional variance after the first one within the same application $150 + T &M Extension of variance which has not been vested $300 + T &M $500 $250 $500 Use Permit Use Permit $300 + T &M $1,500 Renewal of a Use Permit $150 + T &M $250 Charge for each additional use permit after the first one within the same application. $150 + T &M Extension of use permit that has not been vested $150 + T &M $250 $250 Design Review Design Review - Major $300 + T &M Design Review - Minor $150 + T &M Sign $150 + T &M $500 T & M = TIME AND MATERIALS The Planning & Building Director shall set a deposit schedule INVESTIGATIVE FEE = Four times the Activity Fee Master Fees - Revised 7/06 8/16/2006 21 PLANNING & BUILDING DEPARTMENT CONTINUED DEPOSIT Special Services Project with PD overlay - flat fee only Finding pursuant to 30 - 5.7 (k) or (I) Final Design Review Extension of Design Review not yet vested $100 + T &M $100 + T &M $100 + T &M $100 + T &M SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS: PRELIMINARY PLAN $300 + T &M $500 PARCEL MAP $600 + T &M $4,000 Parcel Map Waiver $300 + T &M $500 Extension $150 + T &M $250 TENTATIVE MAP $600 + T &M $2,500 Amendment $300 + T &M $500 Extension $150 + T &M $250 CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION $600 + T &M $750 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE $150 + T &M LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT $150 + T &M $2,500 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Categorical Exemption (included $25 Alameda County Clerk fee) $147.50 + T &M Initial Study $600 + T &M $750 Administrative Charge on outside preparation of Initial 25% of Study, Negative Declaration or EIR contract cost The Planning & Building Director shall set a deposit schedule State Fish and Game Fee (collected by Alameda County Clerk from the City for the State) a. Deminimus finding $25 Set by County b. Negative Declaration $1,275 Set by County c. EIR $875 Set by County Mitigation Monitoring T &M $1500 APPEALS Appeal to Planning Board Appeal to the City Council $100 + T &M $100 + T &M $500 $500 Home Occupation $150 Inspection for Occupancy Permits $100 + T &M Additional inspections: There will be a T & M charge for additional inspections required because work is incomplete when the inspection is requested, with a minimum charge of one hour Request for payment of parking in lieu fee $300 + T &M $1,500 Zoning Compliance determination $100 + T &M Rebuild Letter $100 + T &M Deed Restriction T &M $100 Performance Agreement to allow occupancy before all requirements are completed $100 + T &M $500 0.03% of Activity Community Planning Fee Valuation T & M = TIME AND MATERIALS INVESTIGATIVE FEE = Four times the Activity Fee Master Fees - Revised 7/06 8/16/2006 22 PLANNING & BUILDING DEPARTMENT CONTINUED DEPOSIT PERMIT CENTER Demolition Certificate of Approval a. Principal structure $150 + T &M $250 b. Detached accessory structure such as a garage $150 + T &M $250 Historical Sign Designation $150 + T &M $250 Changes in Historical Building Study List Classification $150 + T &M $250 Alteration to City Monuments $150 + T &M $250 Activity Filing Fee Appeal Hearing (Building, Plumbing, Mechanical. and Electrical Permits Only) $40 each $40 per activity Dwelling Unit Tax $1,342 per unit Sewer Connections Addresses (Per each address): New Change existing $8.66 minimum each plumbing fixture unit $191.00 $360.00 Improvement Tax - 1% of valuation over $5,000 Records management fee per page Property Per unit History Permit History & Unit Determination Research of Records (after 15 mins.) Filling on City Owned Controlled Property (Note: For intemal use - has not changed in 3 yrs) Dredging $3.50 $13.00 $21.00 $50.00 $1.30 per cubic yard $1.30 per cubic yard Technology Fee (Permit Tracking Fee) 5% of permit cost Copies (each): 8 1/2" x 11" copier prints 8 1/2" x 11" microfiche copies (special machines) 11" x 17" microfiche copies (special machines) 18" x 22" Plans or Special Plans Other Documents $0.10 $1.00 $2.00 $15.00 actual cost City Flags: 3' x 5' 5' x 8 $65.00 $90.00 Desk Flag (small) $5.00 Temporary Parking Restrictions: Signs $2.00 per sign Use of Parking Metered Space $4.50 per day Use of Parking Unmetered Space $4.00 per day Film Permit Fees: Plan Check Fee (to be charged at department's hourly plan check rate) T &M One Day $67.00 per day Day two to day fifteen $31.00 day Day sixteen onward $14.00 day Appeal Fee of denial of Film Permit $100 Rental of City property to be determined T & M = TIME AND MATERIALS INVESTIGATIVE FEE = Four times the Activity Fee Master Fees - Revised 7/06 $1,500 $1500 8/16/2006 23 PLANNING & BUILDING DEPARTMENT /PERMIT CENTER CONTINUED Special Event Permits Bingo Permits: New applications (each) Renewals (each) Tent Permits Race, Walk -a- thons, Parades Block Party Permits Banner Permits (set by Public Works Dept. Street Fair Boat Show Charitable Solicitation Permit (set by Police Dept.) Relocation Permits Film Permits: Plan check time from other departments also apply Non - Profit/Still Photography (no street closure) Non - Profit/Still Photography (no street closure) All Others (no street closure) All Others (street closure) All Bridge Closures Daily rates: Day 1 (per day) Day 2 to Day Fifteen (per day) Day 16 onward (per day) Rental on City property to be determined Building Permit Fee Total Valuation $1 - 500 $500 - 2,000 $50 mandated by state $50 mandated by state T &M T &M $70 $1500 $1500 $250 T &M T &M $1500 $1500 T &M $2,001 - 25,000 T &M T &M T &M T &M T &M $7,500 $250 $250 $500 $1,500 $2,500 $25.50 $25.50 for first $500 Plus $3.30 for each additional $100 or fraction thereof $25,001 - 50,000 $50,001 - 100,000 $100,001 - 500,000 $500,001 - 1,000,000 $1,000,000 and up Building Plan Review $75.00 for first $2,000 Plus $14.80 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $415.40 for first $25,000 Plus $10.45 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $676.65 for first $50,000 Plus $7.65 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $1,059.15 for first $100,000 Plus $6.40 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $3,619.50 for first $500,000 Plus $5.35 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $6,294.15 for first $1,000,000 Plus $3.30 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof 100% of activity permit fee - $100 minimum Over the Counter Plan Review Fee Concurrent Plan Check $50 minimum 100% f building permit fee - $100 minimum Overtime Plan Review Fees $200 /hour BOARDED AND /OR VACANT PARCELS Monitoring Fee + ordinance fees Plumbing Permits Permit Fee: Plan Check Fee: $500 each building or vacant parcel 1% of Plumbing Valuation based on the plumbing contract 50% of Plumbing Permit Fee* 1 T & M = TIME AND MATERIALS INVESTIGATIVE FEE = Four times the Activity Fee Master Fees - Revised 7/06 *Charged when plumbing plans are not a part of the building 8/16/2006 24 PERMIT CENTER CONTINUED DEPOSIT Mechanical Permits Permit Fee: Plan Check Fee: Electrical Permits Permit Fee: 1% of Mechanical Valuation based on the mechanical contract price or engineer's estimate, or; 15% of the building permit fee (minimum permit fee shall be $25.50) 50% of Mechanical Permit Fee* `Charged when mechanical plans are not a part of the building plan check package 2% of Electrical Valuation based on the electrical contract price or engineer's estimate, or; 15% of the building permit fee (minimum permit fee shall be $25.50) Plan Check Fee: 50% of Electrical Permit Fee *Charged when electrical plans are not a part of the building plan check package Survey or advisory inspection on site prior to issuance of permit $100 per hour Extra inspection made necessary by reason of deficit work, or otherwise through fault or error on the part of the permitee or permitee's employees, after notice has been given in writing by the Inspector, setting forth the violations $100 per hour Extra time required for inspection through fault or error on the part of permitee or permitee's employees, per quarter hour (15 minutes) or fraction thereof $25 per 15 minutes Excavation and Grading Permit Fees including marsh crust permits: 50 cubic yards or less 51 to 100 cubic yards $26.50 $40 101 to 1,000 cubic yards $40 for first 100 cubic yards Plus $11.50 for each additional 100 cubic yards or fraction thereof 1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards $143.50 for first 1000 cubic yards Plus $16.30 for each additional 1,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof 10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards $290.20 for first 10,000 cubic yards Plus $78.60 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards 100,001 cubic yards or more $977.60 for first 100,000 cubic yards Plus $47 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof Plan Check Fee T &M $100 minimum The City Manager may approve the following: a. Payment of the development fees on an installment basis, subject to the applicant entering into an agreement for payment schedules, interest, and security. b. Allow the payment of the fees to be deferred, subject to interest and adequate security, such as records against the property c. A fee reduction where the application is a resubmission and a finding is made that the staff work involved more than other comparable applications and warrants reduced fees because there is less staff work involved. T & M = TIME AND MATERIALS INVESTIGATIVE FEE = Four times the Activity Fee The Planning and Building Director shall set the deposit schedule for fees. Master Fees - Revised 7/06 8/16/2006 25 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT /FEE # Housing Use Type Units Per Retail 9 100,000 s/f $1.99 square foot Office 20 100,000 s/f $3.92 square foot Warehouse 4 100,000 s/f $0.68 square foot Manufacturing 4 100,000 s/f $0.68 square foot Hotel /Hotel 5 100 rooms /suites $1,007 room /suite Other Fees BWIP/WECIP Inclusionary Fee In -Lieu of Construction (per each residential building permit in the development) $28,933.22 Citywide Inclusionary Fee In -Lieu of Construction (per each residential building permit in the development) $15,982.01 Affordable Housing Unit Fee Program: Application to Development Services Director for Fee Adjustment T &M $750 deposit Appeal of Development Services Director's Decision T &M $1,000 deposit Per City of Alameda Resolution 11899, Alameda Municipal Code Chapter 27 T &M = Time and Materials Master Fees - Revised 7/06 8/16/2006 26 O 0 o N [PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT W tii 0 O O EA 0 o CO M 6F} 0 O 1- EA 1 $46.001 0 o (O co '00'005$ o o (0 o o O 0 o L() (iJ 0 ,- O Eli 0 O EA 0 o N vi 0 o (0 CA Actual Cost! 0 co fR 0 Eii 0 O o 0 ER 0.3% of Permit Valuation $1,342.00 1% of Permit Valuation 0 in C*) EA 0 o CO CO AA 5% of Applicable Permit Fees' 1-I Z I per activity (each permit each permit each each each each per cubic yard I per cubic yard per Appeal (Planning and Building Dept., Fire Dept., and Public Works Dept. permits) per unit per page 1 per connection esigner (Actual charge for copies as below) Retrieval of plans from offsite storage for copying after City obtaining required signatures of property owner and ICopies of Plans from Microfiche after City obtaining required signatures of property owner and architect/d (See Development Services Fee Schedule) (See Public Works Department Fee Schedule) Permits with a Valuation of $5,000 and over DMINISTRATIVE al 'Permit Issuance (Charged on applicable Permit Center Activities) Monitoring Fee + ordinance Fees ies (special machines) 11" x 17" microfiche copies (special machines) 18' x 22" Plans or Special Plans Filling on City-owned or controlled property 1 'Housing and Building Board of Appeal ' 'Impact Fees charged on Applicable Permits ' 'Addresses Assignment Existing New 'Archive Retrivals architect/designer 'BoardedNacant Building Fee 3 x 5' 15' x 8' Desk Flag (small) 8 1/2" x 11' copier prints 8 1/2" x 11" microfiche cop Other Documents Affordable Housing Fee 1 City Development Fee Community Planning Fee Dwelling Unit Tax Improvement Tax Records Management Fee Sewer Connection Fee Technology Fee 0 0) 0 LL Z` CU 'Copies: 'Dredging Attachment #3 CD 0 0 N (PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT CONTINUED CO I`I II q $13.001 $100.001 0 0 Ea I00'O9$ 0 0 $1,500 deposit + Time and Materials' 0 $250 deposit + Time and Materials' $1,500 deposit + Time and Materials $250 deposit + Time and Materials) $1,500 deposit + Time and Materials $2,500 deposit + Time and Materials' to be determined' o lfT $7,500 deposit + Time and Materials $1,500 deposit + Time and Materials $1,500 deposit + Time and Materials $750 deposit + Time and Materialsl $1,500 deposit + Time and Materials iir) EA L)) Ni te. t°n vi Ea each structure per address per hour each each each each each per day per day required per each metered parking space or 20 If.f. non - metered per day per day per day DMINISTRATIVE (regulated by State Law) Charges are determined by each Departments Plan Check time plus daily rates of: $65.00 0 0 O CO Ea $14.00 QI Special Event Permits (Fees waived for Non - profit/Public benefit events) (Permit History and Unit Determination Research of Records (over 15 minutes) Charitable Solicitation Permit Film Permit Non - Profit/Still Photography - no street closure Non - Profit/Still Photography - street closure All Others - no street closure All Others - street closure All Bridge closures Day One 1 Day Two to Day Fifteen Day Sixteen onward Rental of City Property Race, Walk -a -thon, Parade Permit Use of Metered Parking Space Use of Non - Metered Space (per each 20 I.f.) INVESTIGATIVE FEE = Four times the Activity Fee (Permit History ((Public Records Request) Banner Permit Bingo Permit Block Party Permit Boat Show Permit Relocation Permit Street Fair Permit Tent Permit Under 4,500 s.f. Over 4,500 s.f. Temporary Parking Restrictions Signs 2006 PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT CONTINUED PLAN CHECK ONLY CONSTRUCTION TYPES: CONSTRUCTION TYPES: CONSTRUCTION TYPES: I FR, II FR II 1 -HR, III 1 -HR, V 1 -HR II N, III N, IV N, V N IBC /ICC OCCUPANCY BASE COST EACH ADD'L BASE COST EACH ADD'L BASE COST EACH ADD'L. CLASS TYPE SQ. FT. 100 SQ. FT. 100 SQ. FT. 100 SQ. FT. A -1 Theater 2,000 $4,395 $6.66 $3,663 $5.55 $2,930 $4.44 10,000 $4,928 $37.30 $4,107 $31.08 $3,285 $24.87 20,000 $8,658 $15.99 $7,215 $13.32 $5,772 $10.66 40,000 $11,856 $10.87 $9,880 $9.06 $7,904 $7.25 100,000 $18,380 $12.78 $15,316 $10.65 $12,254 $8.52 200,000 $31,160 $15.58 $25,966 $12.98 $20,774 $10.39 A -2 Church 2,000 $2,693 $4.08 $2,244 $3.40 $1,795 $2.72 10,000 $3,019 $22.85 $2,516 $19.04 $2,013 $15.23 20,000 $5,304 $9.78 $4,420 $8.15 $3,536 $6.52 40,000 $7,260 $6.67 $6,050 $5.56 $4,840 $4.44 100,000 $11,260 $7.84 $9,383 $6.53 $7,507 $5.23 200,000 $19,100 $9.55 $15,916 $7.96 $12,734 $6.37 A -2.1 Auditorium 1,000 $2,285 $6.93 $1,904 $5.77 $1,523 $4.62 5,000 $2,562 $38.78 $2,135 $32.32 $1,708 $25.85 10,000 $4,501 $16.61 $3,751 $13.84 $3,001 $11.07 20,000 $6,162 $11.31 $5,135 $9.42 $4,108 $7.54 50,000 $9,555 $13.29 $7,962 $11.07 $6,370 $8.86 100,000 $16,200 $16.20 $13,499 $13.50 $10,801 $10.80 A -2.1 Restaurant 300 $2,113 $21.35 $1,761 $17.80 $1,409 $14.24 1,500 $2,370 $119.54 $1,975 $99.62 $1,580 $79.70 3,000 $4,163 $51.23 $3,469 $42.69 $2,775 $34.15 6,000 $5,700 $34.87 $4,750 $29.06 $3,800 $23.25 15,000 $8,838 $40.99 $7,365 $34.16 $5,892 $27.33 30,000 $14,987 $49.96 $12,489 $41.63 $9,991 $33.30 Restaurant T. I. 250 $821 $9.95 $684 $8.29 $547 $6.64 1,250 $920 $55.70 $767 $46.42 $614 $37.14 2,500 $1,617 $23.89 $1,347 $19.91 $1,078 $15.93 5,000 $2,214 $16.24 $1,845 $13.53 $1,476 $10.83 12,500 $3,432 $19.10 $2,860 $15.92 $2,288 $12.74 25,000 $5,820 $ 23.28 $4,850 $19.40 $3,880 $15.52 A -3 Small Assembly 500 $1,275 $7.73 $1,062 $6.44 $850 $5.15 Buildings 2,500 $1,430 $43.26 $1,191 $36.05 $953 $28.84 5,000 $2,511 $18.54 $2,093 $15.45 $1,674 $12.36 10,000 $3,438 $12.62 $2,865 $10.52 $2,292 $8.41 25,000 $5,331 $14.84 $4,443 $12.37 $3,554 $9.90 50,000 $9,042 $18.08 $7,535 $15.07 $6,028 $12.06 Page 3 2006 PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT CONTINUED PLAN CHECK ONLY CONSTRUCTION TYPES: CONSTRUCTION TYPES: CONSTRUCTION TYPES: I FR, 11FR 111- HR, III 1- HR,V1 -HR 11N, III N, IV N, V N IBC /ICC OCCUPANCY BASE COST EACH ADD'L BASE COST EACH ADD'L BASE COST EACH ADD'L. CLASS TYPE SQ. FT. 100 SQ. FT. 100 SQ. FT. 100 SQ. FT. B Banks 500 $1,275 $7.73 $1,062 $6.44 $850 $5.15 2,500 $1,430 $43.26 $1,191 $36.05 $953 $28.84 5,000 $2,511 $18.54 $2,093 $15.45 $1,674 $12.36 10,000 $3,438 $12.62 $2,865 $10.52 $2,292 $8.41 25,000 $5,331 $14.84 $4,443 $12.37 $3,554 $9.90 50,000 $9,042 $18.08 $7,535 $15.07 $6,028 $12.06 B Laundromat 200 $1,485 $22.50 $1,237 $18.75 $990 $15.00 1,000 $1,665 $125.96 $1,387 $104.97 $1,110 $83.98 2,000 $2,924 $53.98 $2,437 $44.98 $1,949 $35.98 4,000 $4,004 $36.73 $3,336 $30.61 $2,669 $24.49 10,000 $6,208 $43.19 $5,173 $35.99 $4,138 $28.79 20,000 $10,526 $52.63 $8,772 $43.86 $7,018 $35.09 B Medical Office 500 $1,135 $6.88 $946 $5.74 $757 $4.59 2,500 $1,273 $38.53 $1,061 $32.11 $849 $25.69 5,000 $2,236 $16.50 $1,864 $13.75 $1,491 $11.00 10,000 $3,061 $11.23 $2,551 $9.36 $2,041 $7.49 25,000 $4,746 $13.22 $3,955 $11.02 $3,164 $8.82 50,000 $8,052 $16.10 $6,710 $13.42 $5,368 $10.74 B Offices 1,000 $946 $2.86 $788 $2.39 $631 $1.91 5,000 $1,061 $16.05 $884 $13.37 $707 $10.70 10,000 $1,863 $6.89 $1,552 $5.74 $1,242 $4.59 20,000 $2,552 $4.68 $2,127 $3.90 $1,701 $3.12 50,000 $3,995 $5.51 $3,296 $4.59 $2,637 $3.67 100,000 $6,710 $6.71 $5,591 $5.59 $4,474 $4.47 B Office T. 1. 1,000 $640 $1.94 $534 $1.62 $427 $1.29 5,000 $718 $10.86 $598 $9.05 $479 $7.24 10,000 $1,261 $4.67 $1,051 $3.89 $841 $3.11 20,000 $1,728 $3.17 $1,440 $2.64 $1,152 $2.12 50,000 $2,680 $3.72 $2,233 $3.10 $1,787 $2.48 100,000 $4,540 $4.54 $3,783 $3.78 $3,027 $3.03 E -1/E -2 Preschool /School 1,000 $1,380 $4.18 $1,150 $3.48 $920 $2.78 5,000 $1,547 $23.42 $1,289 $19.52 $1,031 $15.62 10,000 $2,718 $10.02 $2,265 $8.35 $1,812 $6.68 20,000 $3,720 $6.84 $3,100 $5.70 $2,480 $4.56 50,000 $5,772 $8.02 $4,810 $6.68 $3,848 $5.34 100,000 $9,780 $9.78 $8,150 $8.15 $6,520 $6.52 Page 4 2006 PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT CONTINUED PLAN CHECK ONLY 1 CONSTRUCTION TYPES: CONSTRUCTION TYPES: CONSTRUCTION TYPES: I FR, II FR II 1 -HR, I111-HR, V 1 -HR II N, III N, IV N, V N IBC /ICC OCCUPANCY BASE COST EACH ADD'L BASE COST EACH ADD'L BASE COST EACH ADD'L. CLASS TYPE SQ. FT. 100 SQ. FT. 100 SQ. FT. 100 SQ. FT. E -3 Daycare 500 $1,100 $6.67 $917 $5.56 $734 $4.44 2,500 $1,234 $37.34 $1,028 $31.12 $822 $24.90 5,000 $2,167 $16.01 $1,806 $13.34 $1,445 $10.67 10,000 $2,968 $10.90 $2,473 $9.08 $1,978 $7.26 25,000 $4,602 $12.79 $3,835 $10.66 $3,068 $8.53 50,000 $7,800 $15.60 $6,500 $13.00 $5,200 $10.40 F -1 Moderate Hazard 2,000 $1,907 $2.89 $1,589 $2.41 $1,271 $1.93 Industrial /Manuf. 10,000 $2,138 $16.18 $1,782 $13.48 $1,425 $10.79 20,000 $3,756 $6.94 $3,130 $5.78 $2,504 $4.63 40,000 $5,144 $4.71 $4,286 $3.92 $3,430 $3.14 100,000 $7,970 $5.55 $6,641 $4.62 $5,314 $3.70 200,000 $13,520 $6.76 $11,266 $5.63 $9,014 $4.51 F -2 Low Hazard 2,000 $1,819 $2.76 $1,516 $2.30 $1,213 $1.84 Industrial /Manuf. 10,000 $2,040 $15.44 $1,700 $12.87 $1,360 $10.29 20,000 $3,584 $6.62 $2,987 $5.52 $2,389 $4.41 40,000 $4,908 $4.50 $4,090 $3.75 $3,272 $3.00 100,000 $7,610 $5.29 $6,341 $4.41 $5,074 $3.53 200,000 $12,900 $6.45 $10,750 $5.37 $8,600 $4.30 H -2 Moderate Explosion 1,000 $2,023 $6.14 $1,686 $5.11 $1,349 $4.09 Hazard 5,000 $2,269 $34.33 $1,890 $28.61 $1,512 $22.89 10,000 $3,985 $14.71 $3,321 $12.26 $2,657 $9.81 20,000 $5,456 $10.01 $4,546 $8.34 $3,638 $6.68 50,000 $8,460 $11.78 $7,050 $9.82 $5,640 $7.85 100,000 $14,350 $14.35 $11,958 $11.96 $9,567 $9.57 H -4 Repair Garage 100 $568 $17.20 $473 $14.33 $378 $11.46 500 $636 $96.32 $530 $80.26 $424 $64.22 1,000 $1,118 $41.28 $932 $34.40 $745 $27.52 2,000 $1,531 $28.09 $1,276 $23.41 $1,021 $18.73 5,000 $2,374 $33.03 $1,978 $27.52 $1,582 $22.02 10,000 $4,025 $40.25 $3,354 $33.54 $2,683 $26.83 H -6 Semiconductor 1,000 $2,183 $6.62 $1,819 $5.52 $1,455 $4.41 Fabrication 5,000 $2,448 $37.03 $2,040 $30.86 $1,632 $24.69 10,000 $4,300 $15.88 $3,583 $13.23 $2,866 $10.58 20,000 $5,887 $10.82 $4,906 $9.01 $3,925 $7.21 50,000 $9,132 $12.70 $7,610 $10.58 $6,088 $8.46 100,000 $15,480 $15.48 $12,900 $12.90 $10,320 $10.32 Page 5 2006 PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT CONTINUED PLAN CHECK ONLY CONSTRUCTION TYPES: CONSTRUCTION TYPES: CONSTRUCTION TYPES: I FR, 11 FR Ill- HR, Ill 1- HR,V1 -HR 11N, Ill N,IVN,VN IBC /ICC OCCUPANCY BASE COST EACH ADD'L BASE COST EACH ADD'L BASE COST EACH ADD'L. CLASS TYPE SQ. FT. 100 SQ. FT. 100 SQ. FT. 100 SQ. FT. H -7 Health Hazard 1,000 $2,428 $7.37 $2,023 $6.14 $1,618 $4.91 Materials 5,000 $2,722 $41.20 $2,269 $34.33 $1,815 $27.46 10,000 $4,782 $17.65 $3,985 $14.71 $3,188 $11.77 20,000 $6,547 $12.02 $5,456 $10.01 $4,365 $8.01 50,000 $10,152 $14.14 $8,460 $11.78 - $6,768 $9.42 100,000 $17,220 $17.22 $14,350 $14.35 $11,480 $11.48 1- 1.1/1 -1.2 Nursing Home/ 3,000 $1,904 $1.93 $1,586 $1.61 $1,269 $1.28 1 -2 Health Care 15,000 $2,135 $10.78 $1,779 $8.98 $1,423 $7.18 30,000 $3,751 $4.61 $3,126 $3.84 $2,501 $3.07 60,000 $5,134 $3.14 $4,278 $2.61 $3,422 $2.09 150,000 $7,956 $3.70 $6,630 $3.08 $5,304 $2.46 300,000 $13,500 $4.50 $11,250 $3.75 $9,000 $3.00 M Stores (Retail) 5,000 $2,165 $1.31 $1,805 $1.09 $1,444 $0.87 25,000 $2,427 $7.36 $2,023 $6.13 $1,618 $4.90 50,000 $4,266 $3.16 $3,555 $2.63 $2,844 $2.10 100,000 $5,844 $2.14 $4,870 $1.79 $3,896 $1.43 250,000 $9,060 $2.52 $7,550 $2.10 $6,040 $1.68 500,000 $15,360 $3.07 $12,800 $2.56 $10,240 $2.05 M Market 1,000 $1,345 $4.07 $1,121 $3.40 $897 $2.72 5,000 $1,508 $22.81 $1,257 $19.01 $1,005 $15.21 10,000 $2,648 $9.78 $2,207 $8.15 $1,766 $6.52 20,000 $3,626 $6.65 $3,022 $5.54 $2,418 $4.43 50,000 $5,622 $7.84 $4,685 $6.53 $3,748 $5.22 100,000 $9,540 $9.54 $7,950 $7.95 $6,360 $6.36 M Retail T. 1. 500 $664 $4.02 $553 $3.35 $442 $2.68 2,500 $744 $22.54 $620 $18.78 $496 $15.02 5,000 $1,307 $9.66 $1,090 $8.05 $872 $6.44 10,000 $1,790 $6.56 $1,492 $5.47 $1,194 $4.38 25,000 $2,775 $7.72 $2,313 $6.43 $1,850 $5.14 50,000 $4,704 $9.41 $3,920 $7.84 $3,136 $6.27 R -1 Apartment Building 3,000 $2,166 $2.19 $1,805 $1.82 $1,444 $1.46 15,000 $2,428 $12.25 $2,024 $10.21 $1,619 $8.17 30,000 $4,266 $5.24 $3,555 $4.37 $2,844 $3.50 60,000 $5,839 $3.57 $4,866 $2.98 $3,893 $2.38 150,000 $9,054 $4.21 $7,545 $3.51 $6,036 $2.81 300,000 $15,372 $5.12 $12,810 $4.27 $10,248 $3.42 Page 6 2006 PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT CONTINUED PLAN CHECK ONLY CONSTRUCTION TYPES: CONSTRUCTION TYPES: CONSTRUCTION TYPES: I FR, II FR II 1 -HR, III 1 -HR, V 1 -HR II N, III N, IV N, V N IBC /ICC OCCUPANCY BASE COST EACH ADD'L BASE COST EACH ADD'L BASE COST EACH ADD'L. CLASS TYPE SQ. FT. 100 SQ. FT. 100 SQ. FT. 100 SQ. FT. R -1 Hotels & Motels 3,000 $1,886 $1.91 $1,572 $1.59 $1,258 $1.27 15,000 $2,115 $10.67 $1,763 $8.89 $1,410 $7.11 30,000 $3,715 $4.58 $3,096 $3.82 $2,477 $3.06 60,000 $5,090 $3.10 $4,242 $2.59 $3,394 $2.07 150,000 $7,884 $3.67 $6,570 $3.06 $5,256 $2.45 300,000 $13,392 $4.46 $11,160 $3.72 $8,928 $2.98 R -3 Dwellings - Custom 1,000 n/a n/a n/a n/a $1,261 $2.86 Models - 1st 2,000 n/a n/a n/a n/a $1,290 $11.46 Master Plan 3,000 n/a n/a n/a n/a $1,405 $22.94 4,000 n/a n/a n/a n/a $1,634 $5.75 5,000 n/a n/a n/a n/a $1,692 $7.16 7,000 n/a n/a n/a n/a $1,835 $26.21 R -3 Dwellings - Production 1,000 n/a n/a n/a n/a $201 $0.00 Phase of Master Plan 2,000 n/a n/a n/a n/a $201 $0.00 (Repeats) 3,000 n/a n/a n/a n/a $201 $0.00 4,000 n/a n/a n/a n/a $201 $0.00 5,000 n/a n/a n/a n/a $201 $0.00 7,000 n/a n/a n/a n/a $201 $0.00 R -2 Residential Care 1,000 $1,188 $3.59 $990 $3.00 $792 $2.40 Facilities 5,000 $1,331 $20.15 $1,110 $16.79 $888 $13.43 10,000 $2,339 $8.65 $1,949 $7.21 $1,559 $5.77 20,000 $3,204 $5.88 $2,670 $4.90 $2,136 $3.92 50,000 $4,968 $6.91 $4,140 $5.76 $3,312 $4.61 100,000 $8,424 $8.42 $7,020 $7.02 $5,616 $5.62 S -1 Moderate Hazard Storage 2,000 $2,009 $3.05 $1,674 $2.54 $1,339 $2.03 10,000 $2,252 $17.03 $1,877 $14.19 $1,502 $11.35 20,000 $3,955 $7.32 $3,296 $6.10 $2,637 $4.88 40,000 $5,419 $4.97 $4,516 $4.14 $3,613 $3.31 100,000 $8,400 $5.83 $7,000 $4.86 $5,600 $3.89 200,000 $14,232 $7.12 $11,860 $5.93 $9,488 $4.74 S -2 Low Hazard Storage 2,000 $1,974 $2.99 $1,645 $2.49 $1,316 $1.99 10,000 $2,213 $16.75 $1,844 $13.96 $1,475 $11.17 20,000 $3,888 $7.18 $3,240 $5.98 $2,592 $4.78 40,000 $5,323 $4.89 $4,436 $4.07 $3,549 $3.26 100,000 $8,256 $5.74 $6,880 $4.78 $5,504 $3.82 200,000 $13,992 $7.00 $11,660 $5.83 $9,328 $4.66 Page 7 2006 PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT CONTINUED PLAN CHECK ONLY CONSTRUCTION TYPES: CONSTRUCTION TYPES: CONSTRUCTION TYPES: I FR, 11 FR 111- HR,II11- HR,V1 -HR 11N, Ill N, IV N, V N IBC /ICC OCCUPANCY BASE COST EACH ADD'L BASE COST EACH ADD'L BASE COST EACH ADD'L. CLASS TYPE SQ. FT. 100 SQ. FT. 100 SQ. FT. 100 SQ. FT. S -3 Repair Garage 1,000 $1,939 $5.88 $1,616 $4.90 $1,292 $3.92 (Not H -4) 5,000 $2,174 $32.89 $1,812 $27.41 $1,449 $21.93 10,000 $3,818 $14.11 $3,182 $11.76 $2,546 $9.41 20,000 $5,230 $9.59 $4,358 $7.99 $3,486 $6.39 50,000 $8,106 $11.29 $6,755 $9.41 $5,404 $7.53 100,000 $13,752 $13.75 $11,460 $11.46 $9,168 $9.17 S -3 Motor Vehicle Fuel 1,000 $2,008 $6.08 $1,674 $5.07 $1,339 $4.06 Dispensing 5,000 $2,252 $34.09 $1,877 $28.41 $1,501 $22.73 10,000 $3,956 $14.60 $3,297 $12.17 $2,638 $9.74 20,000 $5,417 $9.94 $4,514 $8.29 $3,611 $6.63 50,000 $8,400 $11.69 $7,000 $9.74 $5,600 $7.79 100,000 $14,244 $14.24 $11,870 $11.87 $9,496 $9.50 S -3 Parking Garage 1,000 $1,499 $4.55 $1,249 $3.79 $999 $3.03 (Not S -4) 5,000 $1,681 $25.44 $1,401 $21.20 $1,121 $16.96 10,000 $2,953 $10.89 $2,461 $9.07 $1,969 $7.26 20,000 $4,042 $7.43 $3,368 $6.19 $2,695 $4.95 50,000 $6,270 $8.72 $5,225 $7.27 $4,180 $5.81 100,000 $10,630 $10.63 $8,858 $8.86 $7,087 $7.09 S -4 Open Parking Garage 2,500 $1,878 $2.28 $1,565 $1.90 $1,252 $1.52 12,500 $2,105 $12.74 $1,754 $10.62 $1,403 $8.49 25,000 $3,698 $5.47 $3,081 $4.56 $2,465 $3.65 50,000 $5,065 $3.71 $4,221 $3.09 $3,377 $2.48 125,000 $7,850 $4.38 $6,541 $3.65 $5,234 $2.92 250,000 $13,325 $5.33 $11,104 $4.44 $8,884 $3.55 Lab/ R & D 2,000 $2,183 $3.31 $1,819 $2.76 $1,455 $2.21 10,000 $2,448 $18.53 $2,040 $15.44 $1,632 $12.35 20,000 $4,301 $7.94 $3,584 $6.62 $2,867 $5.30 40,000 $5,890 $5.40 $4,908 $4.50 $3,926 $3.60 100,000 $9,132 $6.35 $7,610 $5.29 $6,088 $4.23 200,000 $15,480 $7.74 $12,900 $6.45 $10,320 $5.16 Other T. l.'s 1,000 $768 $2.33 $640 $1.94 $512 $1.55 (Not Office or Retail) 5,000 $862 $13.03 $718 $10.86 $574 $8.69 10,000 $1,513 $5.60 $1,261 $4.67 $1,009 $3.74 20,000 $2,074 $3.81 $1,728 $3.17 $1,382 $2.54 50,000 $3,216 $4.46 $2,680 $3.72 $2,144 $2.98 100,000 $5,446 $5.45 $4,540 $4.54 $3,632 $3.63 Page 8 2006 PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT CONTINUED PLAN CHECK ONLY CONSTRUCTION TYPES: CONSTRUCTION TYPES: CONSTRUCTION TYPES: I FR, 11 FR Ill- HR, III 1- HR,V1 -HR 11N, Ill N,IVN,VN IBC /ICC OCCUPANCY BASE COST EACH ADD'L BASE COST EACH ADD'L BASE COST EACH ADD'L. CLASS TYPE SQ. FT. 100 SQ. FT. 100 SQ. FT. 100 SQ. FT. SHELL BUILDINGS All Shell Buildings 2,000 $1,170 $1.77 $975 $1.47 $780 $1.18 10,000 $1,312 $9.92 $1,093 $8.27 $874 $6.62 20,000 $2,304 $4.25 $1,920 $3.54 $1,536 $2.83 40,000 $3,154 $2.90 $2,628 $2.42 $2,102 $1.94 100,000 $4,896 $3.41 $4,080 $2.84 $3,264 $2.27 200,000 $8,304 $4.15 $6,920 $3.46 $5,536 $2.77 INSPECTION ONLY A -1 Theater 2,000 $4,055 $8.58 $3,379 $7.15 $2,703 $5.72 10,000 $4,741 $5.07 $3,951 $4.22 $3,161 $3.38 20,000 $5,248 $12.50 $4,373 $10.42 $3,499 $8.33 40,000 $7,748 $4.20 $6,456 $3.50 $5,166 $2.80 100,000 $10,270 $3.03 $8,558 $2.52 $6,847 $2.02 200,000 $13,300 $6.65 $11,083 $5.54 $8,867 $4.43 A -2 Church 2,000 $4,055 $8.58 $3,379 $7.15 $2,703 $5.72 10,000 $4,741 $5.07 $3,951 $4.22 $3,161 $3.38 20,000 $5,248 $12.50 $4,373 $10.42 $3,499 $8.33 40,000 $7,748 $4.20 $6,456 $3.50 $5,166 $2.80 100,000 $10,270 $3.03 $8,558 $2.52 $6,847 $2.02 200,000 $13,300 $6.65 $11,083 $5.54 $8,867 $4.43 A -2.1 Auditorium 1,000 $3,133 $13.25 $2,610 $11.04 $2,089 $8.83 5,000 $3,663 $7.85 $3,052 $6.54 $2,442 $5.23 10,000 $4,055 $19.31 $3,379 $16.09 $2,703 $12.87 20,000 $5,986 $6.50 $4,988 $5.41 $3,991 $4.33 50,000 $7,935 $4.69 $6,612 $3.91 $5,290 $3.13 100,000 $10,280 $10.28 $8,566 $8.57 $6,854 $6.85 A -2.1 Restaurant 300 $3,298 $46.50 $2,748 $38.75 $2,199 $31.00 1,500 $3,856 $27.52 $3,213 $22.93 $2,571 $18.34 3,000 $4,269 $67.81 $3,557 $56.51 $2,846 $45.21 6,000 $6,303 $22.81 $5,252 $19.01 $4,202 $15.21 15,000 $8,356 $16.44 $6,963 $13.70 $5,570 $10.96 30,000 $10,822 $36.07 $9,018 $30.06 $7,214 $24.05 Page 9 2006 PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT CONTINUED INSPECTION ONLY CONSTRUCTION TYPES: CONSTRUCTION TYPES: CONSTRUCTION TYPES: I FR, 11 FR I11- HR,II11- HR,V1 -HR 11N, Ill N, IV N, V N IBC /ICC OCCUPANCY BASE COST EACH ADD'L BASE COST EACH ADD'L BASE COST EACH ADD'L. CLASS TYPE SQ. FT. 100 SQ. FT. 100 SQ. FT. 100 SQ. FT. Restaurant T. I. 250 $2,242 $37.93 $1,868 $31.61 $1,495 $25.28 1,250 $2,621 $22.46 $2,185 $18.72 $1,748 $14.98 2,500 $2,902 $55.32 $2,419 $46.10 $1,935 $36.88 5,000 $4,285 $18.60 $3,571 $15.50 $2,857 $12.40 12,500 $5,681 $13.40 $4,734 $11.17 $3,787 $8.94 25,000 $7,356 $29.42 $6,130 $24.52 $4,904 $19.62 A -3 Small Assembly 500 $3,049 $25.79 $2,541 $21.50 $2,033 $17.20 Buildings 2,500 $3,565 $15.25 $2,971 $12.71 $2,377 $10.17 5,000 $3,946 $37.62 $3,289 $31.35 $2,631 $25.08 10,000 $5,827 $12.65 $4,856 $10.54 $3,885 $8.43 25,000 $7,725 $9.11 $6,438 $7.59 $5,150 $6.07 50,000 $10,002 $20.00 $8,335 $16.67 $6,668 $13.34 B Banks 500 $3,049 $25.79 $2,541 $21.50 $2,033 $17.20 2,500 $3,565 $15.25 $2,971 $12.71 $2,377 $10.17 5,000 $3,946 $37.62 $3,289 $31.35 $2,631 $25.08 10,000 $5,827 $12.65 $4,856 $10.54 $3,885 $8.43 25,000 $7,725 $9.11 $6,438 $7.59 $5,150 $6.07 50,000 $10,002 $20.00 $8,335 $16.67 $6,668 $13.34 B Laundromat 200 $3,619 $76.52 $3,016 $63.77 $2,413 $51.02 1,000 $4,231 $45.30 $3,526 $37.75 $2,821 $30.20 2,000 $4,684 $111.61 $3,903 $93.01 $3,123 $74.41 4,000 $6,916 $37.55 $5,764 $31.29 $4,611 $25.03 10,000 $9,169 $27.06 $7,641 $22.55 $6,113 $18.04 20,000 $11,875 $59.38 $9,896 $49.48 $7,917 $39.58 B Medical Office 500 $3,199 $27.06 $2,666 $22.55 $2,133 $18.04 2,500 $3,740 $16.02 $3,117 $13.35 $2,493 $10.68 5,000 $4,141 $39.47 $3,451 $32.89 $2,760 $26.31 10,000 $6,114 $13.28 $5,095 $11.07 $4,076 $8.85 25,000 $8,106 $9.55 $6,755 $7.96 $5,404 $6.37 50,000 $10,494 $20.99 $8,745 $17.49 $6,996 $13.99 B Offices 1,000 $2,813 $11.89 $2,344 $9.91 $1,875 $7.93 5,000 $3,289 $7.05 $2,740 $5.87 $2,192 $4.70 10,000 $3,641 $17.35 $3,034 $14.46 $2,427 $11.57 20,000 $5,376 $5.83 $4,480 $4.86 $3,584 $3.89 50,000 $7,125 $4.21 $5,937 $3.51 $4,750 $2.81 100,000 $9,230 $9.23 $7,691 $7.69 $6,154 $6.15 Page 10 2006 PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT CONTINUED INSPECTION ONLY CONSTRUCTION TYPES: CONSTRUCTION TYPES: CONSTRUCTION TYPES: I FR, 11 FR 11 1 -HR, III 1 -HR, V 1 -HR 11 N, III N, IV N, V N IBC /ICC OCCUPANCY BASE COST EACH ADD'L BASE COST EACH ADD'L BASE COST EACH ADD'L. CLASS TYPE SQ. FT. 100 SQ. FT. 100 SQ. FT. 100 SQ. FT. B Office T. I. 1,000 $1,738 $7.36 $1,448 $6.13 $1,159 $4.91 5,000 $2,033 $4.35 $1,694 $3.62 $1,355 $2.90 10,000 $2,250 $10.72 $1,875 $8.93 $1,500 $7.15 20,000 $3,322 $3.61 $2,768 $3.01 $2,215 $2.41 50,000 $4,405 $2.59 $3,671 $2.16 $2,937 $1.73 100,000 $5,700 $5.70 $4,750 $4.75 $3,800 $3.80 E -1 /E -2 Preschool /School 1,000 $4,176 $17.66 $3,480 $14.71 $2,784 $11.77 5,000 $4,882 $10.45 $4,069 $8.71 $3,255 $6.97 10,000 $5,405 $25.75 $4,504 $21.46 $3,603 $17.17 20,000 $7,980 $8.66 $6,650 $7.22 $5,320 $5.77 50,000 $10,578 $6.25 $8,815 $5.21 $7,052 $4.17 100,000 $13,704 $13.70 $11,420 $11.42 $9,136 $9.14 E -3 Daycare 500 $2,851 $24.11 $2,376 $20.10 $1,901 $16.08 2,500 $3,334 $14.28 $2,778 $11.90 $2,222 $9.52 5,000 $3,691 $35.17 $3,076 $29.31 $2,460 $23.45 10,000 $5,449 $11.83 $4,541 $9.86 $3,633 $7.89 25,000 $7,224 $8.52 $6,020 $7.10 $4,816 $5.68 50,000 $9,354 $18.71 $7,795 $15.59 $6,236 $12.47 F -1 Moderate Hazard 2,000 $5,343 $11.30 $4,452 $9.42 $3,562 $7.53 Industrial /Manuf. 10,000 $6,247 $6.69 $5,206 $5.57 $4,165 $4.46 20,000 $6,916 $16.48 $5,763 $13.73 $4,611 $10.99 40,000 $10,212 $5.55 $8,510 $4.62 $6,808 $3.70 100,000 $13,540 $4.00 $11,283 $3.33 $9,027 $2.67 200,000 $17,540 $8.77 $14,616 $7.31 $11,694 $5.85 F -2 Low Hazard 2,000 $4,934 $10.43 $4,111 $8.69 $3,289 $6.95 lndustrial/Manuf. 10,000 $5,768 $6.18 $4,806 $5.15 $3,846 $4.12 20,000 $6,386 $15.21 $5,321 $12.67 $4,258 $10.14 40,000 $9,428 $5.12 $7,856 $4.27 $6,286 $3.41 100,000 $12,500 $3.68 $10,416 $3.07 $8,334 $2.45 200,000 $16,180 $8.09 $13,483 $6.74 $10,787 $5.39 H -2 Moderate Explosion 1,000 $3,388 $14.33 $2,823 $11.94 $2,259 $9.55 Hazard 5,000 $3,961 $8.48 $3,301 $7.07 $2,641 $5.65 10,000 $4,385 $20.89 $3,654 $17.41 $2,923 $13.93 20,000 $6,474 $7.04 $5,395 $5.86 $4,316 $4.69 50,000 $8,585 $5.07 $7,154 $4.22 $5,724 $3.38 100,000 $11,120 $11.12 $9,266 $9.27 $7,414 $7.41 Page 11 2006 PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT CONTINUED INSPECTION ONLY CONSTRUCTION TYPES: CONSTRUCTION TYPES: CONSTRUCTION TYPES: 1 FR, 11 FR 11 1 -HR, III 1 -HR, V 1 -HR 11 N, III N, IV N, V N IBC /ICC OCCUPANCY BASE COST EACH ADD'L BASE COST EACH ADD'L BASE COST EACH ADD'L. CLASS TYPE SQ. FT. 100 SQ. FT. 100 SQ. FT. 100 SQ. FT. H -4 Repair Garage 100 $2,173 $91.91 $1,811 $76.59 $1,449 $61.28 500 $2,541 $54.41 $2,117 $45.34 $1,694 $36.28 1,000 $2,813 $134.03 $2,344 $111.69 $1,875 $89.36 2,000 $4,153 $45.09 $3,461 $37.58 $2,769 $30.06 5,000 $5,506 $32.50 $4,588 $27.08 $3,671 $21.67 10,000 $7,131 $71.31 $5,942 $59.42 $4,754 $47.54 H -6 Semiconductor 1,000 $4,065 $17.20 $3,388 $14.33 $2,710 $11.46 Fabrication 5,000 $4,753 $10.18 $3,961 $8.48 $3,169 $6.78 10,000 $5,262 $25.07 $4,385 $20.89 $3,508 $16.71 20,000 $7,769 $8.44 $6,474 $7.04 $5,179 $5.63 50,000 $10,302 $6.08 $8,585 $5.07 $6,868 $4.06 100,000 $13,344 $13.34 $11,120 $11.12 $8,896 $8.90 H -7 Health Hazard 1,000 $4,065 $17.20 $3,388 $14.33 $2,710 $11.46 Materials 5,000 $4,753 $10.18 $3,961 $8.48 $3,169 $6.78 10,000 $5,262 $25.07 $4,385 $20.89 $3,508 $16.71 20,000 $7,769 $8.44 $6,474 $7.04 $5,179 $5.63 50,000 $10,302 $6.08 $8,585 $5.07 $6,868 $4.06 100,000 $13,344 $13.34 $11,120 $11.12 $8,896 $8.90 1- 1.1/1 -1.2 Nursing Home/ 3,000 $9,269 $13.07 $7,724 $10.89 $6,180 $8.71 1 -2 Health Care 15,000 $10,838 $7.74 $9,032 $6.45 $7,225 $5.16 30,000 $11,999 $19.04 $9,999 $15.87 $7,999 $12.70 60,000 $17,712 $6.42 $14,760 $5.35 $11,808 $4.28 150,000 $23,490 $4.62 $19,575 $3.85 $15,660 $3.08 300,000 $30,420 $10.14 $25,350 $8.45 $20,280 $6.76 M Stores (Retail) 5,000 $6,607 $5.59 $5,506 $4.66 $4,405 $3.73 25,000 $7,725 $3.30 $6,438 $2.75 $5,150 $2.20 50,000 $8,550 $8.15 $7,125 $6.79 $5,700 $5.43 100,000 $12,624 $2.74 $10,520 $2.29 $8,416 $1.83 250,000 $16,740 $1.97 $13,950 $1.64 $11,160 $1.31 500,000 $21,660 $4.33 $18,050 $3.61 $14,440 $2.89 M Market 1,000 $3,375 $14.27 $2,813 $11.89 $2,250 $9.51 5,000 $3,946 $8.46 $3,289 $7.05 $2,631 $5.64 10,000 $4,369 $20.82 $3,641 $17.35 $2,913 $13.88 20,000 $6,451 $7.00 $5,376 $5.83 $4,301 $4.66 50,000 $8,550 $5.05 $7,125 $4.21 $5,700 $3.37 100,000 $11,076 $11.08 $9,230 $9.23 $7,384 $7.38 Page 12 2006 PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT CONTINUED INSPECTION ONLY CONSTRUCTION TYPES: CONSTRUCTION TYPES: CONSTRUCTION TYPES: I FR, II FR 11 1 -HR, III 1 -HR, V 1 -HR II N, III N, IV N, V N IBC /ICC OCCUPANCY BASE COST EACH ADD'L BASE COST EACH ADD'L BASE COST EACH ADD'L. CLASS TYPE SQ. FT. 100 SQ. FT. 100 SQ. FT. 100 SQ. FT. M Retail T. 1. 500 $1,809 $15.31 $1,508 $12.76 $1,206 $10.21 2,500 $2,116 $9.05 $1,763 $7.54 $1,410 $6.03 5,000 $2,342 $22.33 $1,952 $18.61 $1,561 $14.89 10,000 $3,458 $7.50 $2,882 $6.25 $2,306 $5.00 25,000 $4,584 $5.42 $3,820 $4.52 $3,056 $3.62 50,000 $5,940 $11.88 $4,950 $9.90 $3,960 $7.92 R -1 Apartment Building 3,000 $10,019 $14.13 $8,349 $11.78 $6,679 $9.42 15,000 $11,714 $8.35 $9,762 $6.96 $7,810 $5.57 30,000 $12,967 $20.59 $10,806 $17.16 $8,645 $13.73 60,000 $19,145 $6.93 $15,954 $5.77 $12,763 $4.62 150,000 $25,380 $4.99 $21,150 $4.16 $16,920 $3.33 300,000 $32,868 $10.96 $27,390 $9.13 $21,912 $7.30 R -1 Hotels & Motels 3,000 $10,686 $15.07 $8,905 $12.56 $7,124 $10.05 15,000 $12,494 $8.92 $10,412 $7.43 $8,329 $5.95 30,000 $13,831 $21.96 $11,526 $18.30 $9,221 $14.64 60,000 $20,419 $7.39 $17,016 $6.16 $13,613 $4.93 150,000 $27,072 $5.33 $22,560 $4.44 $18,048 $3.55 300,000 $35,064 $11.69 $29,220 $9.74 $23,376 $7.79 R -3 Dwellings - Custom 1,000 n/a n/a n/a n/a $1,737 $2.97 Models - 1st 2,000 n/a n/a n/a n/a $1,767 $7.92 Master Plan 3,000 n/a n/a n/a n/a $1,846 $40.02 4,000 n/a n/a n/a n/a $2,246 $8.81 5,000 n/a n/a n/a n/a $2,335 $4.73 7,000 n/a n/a n/a n/a $2,429 $34.70 R -3 Dwellings - Production 1,000 n/a n/a n/a n/a $1,568 $2.75 Phase of Master Plan 2,000 n/a n/a n/a n/a $1,595 $7.12 (Repeats) 3,000 n/a n/a n/a n/a $1,666 $35.54 4,000 n/a n/a n/a n/a $2,022 $7.44 5,000 n/a n/a n/a n/a $2,096 $3.98 7,000 n/a n/a n/a n/a $2,176 $31.08 R -2 Residential Care 1,000 $3,295 $13.94 $2,746 $11.61 $2,196 $9.29 Facilities 5,000 $3,852 $8.26 $3,210 $6.88 $2,568 $5.50 10,000 $4,265 $20.33 $3,554 $16.94 $2,843 $13.55 20,000 $6,298 $6.83 $5,248 $5.69 $4,198 $4.55 50,000 $8,346 $4.93 $6,955 $4.11 $5,564 $3.29 100,000 $10,812 $10.81 $9,010 $9.01 $7,208 $7.21 Page 13 2006 PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT CONTINUED INSPECTION ONLY CONSTRUCTION TYPES: CONSTRUCTION TYPES: CONSTRUCTION TYPES: I FR, 11 FR II 1-HR, III 1-HR, V 1-HR 11N, Ill N, IV N, V N IBC /ICC OCCUPANCY BASE COST EACH ADD'L BASE COST EACH ADD'L BASE COST EACH ADD'L. CLASS TYPE SQ. FT. 100 SQ. FT. 100 SQ. FT. 100 SQ. FT. S -1 Moderate Hazard Storage 2,000 $5,456 $11.54 $4,547 $9.62 $3,637 $7.69 10,000 $6,379 $6.82 $5,316 $5.68 $4,253 $4.54 20,000 $7,061 $16.82 $5,884 $14.02 $4,707 $11.22 40,000 $10,426 $5.66 $8,688 $4.72 $6,950 $3.78 100,000 $13,824 $4.08 $11,520 $3.40 $9,216 $2.72 200,000 $17,904 $8.95 $14,920 $7.46 $11,936 $5.97 S -2 Low Hazard Storage 2,000 $5,456 $11.54 $4,547 $9.62 $3,637 $7.69 10,000 $6,379 $6.82 $5,316 $5.68 $4,253 $4.54 20,000 $7,061 $16.82 $5,884 $14.02 $4,707 $11.22 40,000 $10,426 $5.66 $8,688 $4.72 $6,950 $3.78 100,000 $13,824 $4.08 $11,520 $3.40 $9,216 $2.72 200,000 $17,904 $8.95 $14,920 $7.46 $11,936 $5.97 S -3 Repair Garage 1,000 $4,023 $17.01 $3,352 $14.18 $2,682 $11.34 (Not H -4) 5,000 $4,703 $10.07 $3,920 $8.39 $3,136 $6.71 10,000 $5,207 $24.80 $4,339 $20.67 $3,471 $16.54 20,000 $7,687 $8.36 $6,406 $6.96 $5,125 $5.57 50,000 $10,194 $6.01 $8,495 $5.01 $6,796 $4.01 100,000 $13,200 $13.20 $11,000 $11.00 $8,800 $8.80 S -3 Motor Vehicle Fuel . 1,000 $4,023 $17.01 $3,352 $14.18 $2,682 $11.34 Dispensing 5,000 $4,703 $10.07 $3,920 $8.39 $3,136 $6.71 10,000 $5,207 $24.80 $4,339 $20.67 $3,471 $16.54 20,000 $7,687 $8.36 $6,406 $6.96 $5,125 $5.57 50,000 $10,194 $6.01 $8,495 $5.01 $6,796 $4.01 100,000 $13,200 $13.20 $11,000 $11.00 $8,800 $8.80 S -3 Parking Garage 1,000 $3,209 $13.57 $2,674 $11.30 $2,139 $9.04 (Not S -4) 5,000 $3,752 $8.03 $3,126 $6.69 $2,501 $5.35 10,000 $4,153 $19.79 $3,461 $16.49 $2,769 $13.19 20,000 $6,132 $6.66 $5,110 $5.55 $4,088 $4.44 50,000 $8,130 $4.80 $6,775 $4.00 $5,420 $3.20 100,000 $10,530 $10.53 $8,775 $8.77 $7,020 $7.02 S -4 Open Parking Garage 2,500 $4,091 $6.92 $3,409 $5.77 $2,727 $4.61 12,500 $4,783 $4.10 $3,985 $3.42 $3,188 $2.73 25,000 $5,295 $10.08 $4,412 $8.40 $3,530 $6.72 50,000 $7,815 $3.40 $6,512 $2.83 $5,210 $2.26 125,000 $10,363 $2.45 $8,635 $2.04 $6,909 $1.63 250,000 $13,425 $5.37 $11,187 $4.47 $8,950 $3.58 Page 14 2006 !PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT CONTINUED INSPECTION ONLY CONSTRUCTION TYPES: CONSTRUCTION TYPES: CONSTRUCTION TYPES: I FR, 11 FR 11 1 -HR, III 1 -HR, V 1 -HR 11 N, III N, IV N, V N IBC /ICC OCCUPANCY BASE COST EACH ADD'L BASE COST EACH ADD'L BASE COST EACH ADD'L. CLASS TYPE SQ. FT. 100 SQ. FT. 100 SQ. FT. 100 SQ. FT. Lab/ R & D 2,000 $5,921 $12.51 $4,934 $10.43 $3,947 $8.34 10,000 $6,922 $7.42 $5,768 $6.18 $4,614 $4.94 20,000 $7,663 $18.25 $6,386 $15.21 $5,109 $12.17 40,000 $11,314 $6.14 $9,428 $5.12 $7,542 $4.10 100,000 $15,000 $4.42 $12,500 $3.68 $10,000 $2.94 200,000 $19,416 $9.71 $16,180 $8.09 $12,944 $6.47 Other T. l.'s 1,000 $2,078 $8.79 $1,732 $7.33 $1,386 $5.86 (Not Office or Retail) 5,000 $2,430 $5.21 $2,025 $4.34 $1,620 $3.47 10,000 $2,690 $12.82 $2,242 $10.68 $1,794 $8.54 20,000 $3,972 $4.32 $3,310 $3.60 $2,648 $2.88 50,000 $5,268 $3.10 $4,390 $2.58 $3,512 $2.06 100,000 $6,816 $6.82 $5,680 $5.68 $4,544 $4.54 SHELL BUILDINGS All Shell Buildings 2,000 $3,842 $8.12 $3,202 $6.77 $2,561 $5.41 10,000 $4,492 $4.81 $3,743 $4.01 $2,994 $3.21 20,000 $4,973 $11.86 $4,144 $9.88 $3,315 $7.90 40,000 $7,344 $3.98 $6,120 $3.32 $4,896 $2.65 100,000 $9,732 $2.87 $8,110 $2.39 $6,488 $1.91 200,000 $12,600 $6.30 $10,500 $5.25 $8,400 $4.20 Excavation and Grading Permit Fees including marsh crust perm ts:* 50 cubic yards or less $26.50 51 to 100 cubic yards $40.00 $40 for first 100 cubic yards Plus 101 to 1,000 cubic yards $11.50 for each additional 100 cubic yards or fraction thereof $143.50 for first 1000 cubic yards Plus 1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards $16.30 for each additional 1,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof $290.20 for first 10,000 cubic yards PI 10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards $78.60 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards $997.60 for first 100,000 cubic yards Plus 100,001 cubic yards or more $47 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof PLAN CHECK hourly $114.67 Page 15 2006 PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT CONTINUED _ MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS UNIT INTAKE/ INSPECTION COST PLAN CHECK Standard hourly rate per hour $115 Permit Center Processing Fee each $40 Minimum Permit Fee ( for projects that are not classified with values less than $1000) $50 Antenna Equipment Shelter each • $458.68 $344.01 $803 Cellular /Mobile Phone each $458.68 $152.51 $611 Awning /Canopy each $344.01 $114.67 $459 Carport each $401.35 $152.51 $554 Certificate of Occupancy - Residential each $229.34 $86.00 $315 Certificate of Occupancy Commercial each $229.34 $344.01 $573 Close Existing Openings each $344.01 $114.67 $459 Commercial Trailer each unit $401.35 $172.01 $573 Deck - ground floor each $344.01 $152.51 $497 Deck - second story and above each $401.35 $229.34 $631 Demolition each $229.34 $114.67 $344 Duplicate /Replacement Job Card each $10.00 $0.00 $10 Fence or Freestanding Wall (non masonry) >six feet in height up to 100 I.f. 172.01 57.34 $229 Each additional 100 I.f. each 100 I.f. 0.00 28.67 $29 Fence or Freestanding Wall (masonry) >six feet in height up to 100 I.f. 344.01 172.01 $516 Each additional 100 I.f. each 100 I.f. 0.00 86.00 $86 Fireplace Masonry each 458.68 286.68 $745 Pre - fabricated /Metal each 267.18 114.67 $382 Flag Pole each 344.01 114.67 $459 Garage Wood Frame up to 1000 s.f. each 458.68 401.35 $860 Masonry up to 1000 s.f. each 458.68 516.02 $975 Greenhouse (non - commercial) each 458.68 152.51 $611 Light Pole each 229.34 114.67 $344 Each additional pole each 0.00 28.67 $29 Partition - Commercial, Interior up to 30 I.f. up to 30 I.f. 344.01 152.51 $497 Each additional 30 I.f. each 30 I.f. 28.67 28.67 $57 Partition - Residential, interior each 344.01 152.51 $497 Patio Cover Open, all types up to 300 s.f. 344.01 152.51 $497 Additional open cover each 300 s.f. 28.67 28.67 $57 Enclosed, all types up to 300 s.f. 458.68 229.34 $688 Additional enclosed cover each 300 s.f. 28.67 28.67 $57 Photovoltaic System each 300 s.f. 344.01 172.01 $516 PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT CONTINUED MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS UNIT INTAKE/ INSPECTION COST PLAN CHECK Pier /Pile Foundation Page 16 2006 Page 17 Cast in place Concrete (1st 10 piers) up to 10 458.68 286.68 $745 Additional Piers (each 10) each 10 28.67 172.01 $201 Driven (steel, pre- stressed concrete up to 10 5,458.68 152.51 $5,611 Additional Piles (each 10) each 10 28.67 28.67 $57 Pre -Plan Inspection (first hour) each 114.67 114.67 $229 Each additional hour hourly rate 0.00 114.67 $115 Retaining Wall /Foundation Repair First 50 I.f. up to 501.f. 401.35 172.01 $573 Each additiona 50 I.f. each 50 I.f. 0.00 57.34 $57 Remodel - Residential Less than 300 s.f. up to 300 s.f. 458.68 344.01 $803 Kitchen - OTC up to 300 s.f. 172.01 573.35 $745 Bath OTC up to 300 s.f. 172.01 458.68 $631 Kitchen - Routed up to 300 s.f. 458.68 573.35 $1,032 Bath - Routed up to 300 s.f. 458.68 458.68 $917 Additional Remodel each 300 s.f. 28.67 68.80 $97 Re -Roof each 114.67 114.67 $229 Re- Roof with Sheathing each 114.67 229.34 $344 Roof Structure Replacement up to 1500 s.f. 458.68 344.01 $803 Each additional 500 s.f. each 500 s.f. 0.00 114.67 $115 Room Additon - First Story Up to 500 s.f. up to 500 s.f. 573.35 688.02 $1,261 Each additional 500 s.f. each 500 s.f. 57.34 114.67 $172 Room Addition - Multi -story Up to 500 s.f. up to 500 s.f. 688.02 917.36 $1,605 Each additional 500 s.f. each 500 s.f. 57.34 114.67 $172 Sauna - Steam each 344.01 286.68 $631 Seismic Retrofit* ( Fee reduced from $700 to provide an incentive) up to 100 I.f. 150.00 150.00 $300 Each additional 100 I.f. each 100 I.f. 0.00 25.00 $25 Seismic Retrofit per ABAG Plan or 2006 IEBC each 75.00 75.00 $150 Signs Directional each 286.68 114.67 $401 Each additonal each 0.00 57.34 $57 Ground /Roof /Projecting each 286.68 172.01 $459 Master Plan Sign Check each 458.68 0.00 $459 Rework of any existing ground sign each 286.68 114.67 $401 Other Sign each 286.68 114.67 $401 Wall /Awning Sign, Non - electric each 286.68 114.67 $401 Wall/ Electric each 286.68 114.67 $401 PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT CONTINUED MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS UNIT INTAKE/ INSPECTION COST PLAN CHECK Skylight Less than 10 s.f. each 172.01 86.00 $258 Greater than 10 s.f. or structural each 344.01 172.01 $516 Spa or Hot Tub each 229.34 143.34 $373 Stairs - First Flight first flight 344.01 114.67 $459 Each Additional Flight per flight 0.00 57.34 $57 Storage Racks first 100 I.f. 344.01 114.67 $459 Each Additional 100 I.f. each 100 I.f. 0.00 28.67 $29 Page 17 2006 Swimming Pool /Spa Pre - fabricated each 430.01 344.01 $774 Custom -built each 458.68 688.02 $1,147 Commercial Pool each 516.02 802.69 $1,319 Termite Report/Dry rot Repairs each 172.01 172.01 $344 Window or Door Replacement up to 5 229.34 114.67 $344 Additional Replacement each 5 0.00 57.34 $57 New Window up to 5 286.68 152.51 $439 Additional New Window each 5 0.00 57.34 $57 Supplemental Plan Check Fee (first 1/2 hour) each 172.01 0.00 $172 Each additional 1/2 hour (or portion thereof) per 1/2 hour 57.34 0.00 $57 Supplemental Inspection Fee (first 1/2 hour) each 57.34 57.34 $115 Each additional 1/2 hour (or portion thereof) per 1/2 hour 0.00 57.34 $57 Board of Appeals each 688.02 $688 Emergency Call -Out (Non - scheduled) Hourly (min 4 hrs.) 0.00 458.68 $459 After Hours Call -Out (Scheduled) Hourly (min 4 hrs.) 0.00 458.68 $459 * Seismic Retrofit Fee is for retrofit work only. Associated work inluding plumbing, mechanical, electrical , sheetrock, finish, etc will be charged accordingly. Stand -alone Mechanical Plan Check (hourly rate) $114.67 Install /Relocate each forced air or gravity -type furnace or burner (including attached ducts and vents) up to $95.56 and including 100,000 Btu /hr Repair /Alteration /Addition to each heating appliance, refrigeration unit cooling unit, absorption unit or each $76.45 heating, cooling, absorption, or evaporative cooling system, including installation of controls regulated by code Install /Relocate each boiler or compressor, up to and including 3 HP, or each absorption system up to and $95.56 including 100,000 Btu /hr PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT CONTINUED MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES Each air - handling unit, including attached ducts. (Note: This fee shall not apply to an air - handling unit which $152.89 is a portion of a factory- assembled appliance, cooling unit, evaporative cooler, or absorption unit for which a permit is required elsewhere in the code.) Each Ventilation system which is not a portion of any heating or air conditioning system authorized $38.22 by a permit Residential - Installation of each hood which is served by mechanical exhaust, including the ducts for such $38.22 hood Commercial - Installation of each hood which is served by mechanical exhaust, including the ducts for such $191.12 hood Each Appliance or piece of equipment regulated by this code but not classed in other appliance categories, $57.34 or for which no other fee is listed in the code Other Mechanical Inspections (per Hour) $114.67 PLUMBING / GAS PERMIT FEES Page 18 2006 Stand -alone Plumbing Plan Check (hourly rate) $114.67 Each Plumbing fixture or trap or set of fixtures on one trap (including water, drainage, piping, and backflow $57.34 protection therefore) Each Building Sewer $76.45 Each Water Heater and /or Vent $57.34 Each Industrial waste pretreatment interceptor including its trap and vent, excepting kitchen -type grease $191.12 interceptors functioning as fixture traps Installation, alteration, or repair of water piping and /or water treating equipment (each) $76.45 Installation, alteration, or repair of gas piping and /or gas treating equipment (each) $76.45 Repair or alteration of drainage or vent piping, each fixture $57.34 Each lawn sprinkler system on any one meter, including backflow protection devices therefor $28.67 Backflow devices not included in other fee services (e.g., building sewer) each unit $28.67 Gas test (each $5734 Sewer lateral test (each) $57.34 Other Plumbing and Gas Inspections (per hour) $114.67 Stand Alone Electrical Plan Check ( hourly rate) $114.67 Private, Residential, In- ground swimming pools $191.12 (Includes a complete system of necessary branch circuit wiring, bonding, grounding, underwater lighting, water pumping and other similar electrical equipment directly related to the operation of a swimming pool.) For all other types of swimming pools, therapeutic whirlpools, spas, and alterations to existing $76.45 swimming pools Page 19 2006 PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT CONTINUED ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEES Temporary Power Service Temporary Service power pole or pedestal, including all pole or pedestal- mounted receptacle outlets $57.34 and appurtenances Temporary distribution system and temporary lighting and receptacle outlets for construction sites, $57.34 decorative lighting, Christmas tree sales lots, etc. (NOTE- SEPARATE FEE DUE TO ALAMEDA POWER AND TELECOM OF $250.00 PER SERVICE) 15 or 20 amp - First 10 circuits (each) $19.11 - Over 10 circuits (each) $9.56 25 to 40 amp circuits (each) $28.67 50 to 175 amp circuits (each) $38.22 Receptacle, Switch and Lighting Outlets (Receptacle, switch, lighting or other outlets at which current is used or controlled, except services, feeders, and meters) First 10 (or portion thereof) $57.34 Each additional 10 (or portion thereof) $38.22 (For multi - outlet assemblies, each 5 feet or fraction thereof may be considered as one outlet) Lighting Fixtures Lighting Fixtures, sockets, or other lamp- holding devices First 10 (or portion thereof) $5734 Each additional 10 (or fraction thereof) $38.22 Residential Appliances Fixed residential appliances or receptacle outlets for same, including wall- mounted electric ovens; counter $28.67 mounted cooking tops; electric ranges; self- contained room console or through -wall air conditioners; space heaters; food waste grinders; dishwashers; washing machines; water heaters; clothes dryers; or other motor - operated appliances (each) not exceeding one horsepower (HP) in rating. (each) Non - Residential Appliances $38.22 Residential Appliances and self- contained factory-wired nonresidential appliances, including medical and dental devices; food, beverage, and ice cream cabinets; illuminated show cases; drinking fountains; vending machines; laundry machines; or other similar types of equipment.) (each) Power Apparatus $5734 Motors, generators, transformers, rectifiers, synchronous converters, capacitors, industrial heating, air conditioners and heat pumps, cooking or baking equipment, and other apparatus, as follows: Note: These fees include all switches, circuit breakers, contactors, thermostats, relays, and other directly related control equipment. Page 20 2006 PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT CONTINUED ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEES Busways Trolley and plug -in -type busways - each 100 I.f. or fraction thereof $76.45 (An additional fee will be required for lighting fixtures, motors and other appliances that are connected to trolley and plug -in type busways. No fee is required for portable tools.) Signs, Outline Lighting, and Marquees Signs, Outline Lighting, or Marquees supplied from one branch circuit (each) Additional branch circuits within the same sign, outline lighting system, or marquee (each) $38.22 $38.22 Services Services of 600 volts or less and not over 200 amperes in rating (each) Services of 600 volts or less and over 200 amperes to 1,000 amperes in rating (each) Services over 600 volts or over 1,000 amperes in rating (each) (NOTE: AN ADDITIONAL FEE OF $105 (UNDERGROUND) OR $150 (OVERHEAD) IS DUE TO ALAMEDA $76.45 $133.88 $172.01 POWER AND TELECOM FOR THE RECONNECTION OR UPGRADE OF ANY SERVICE) Miscellaneous Apparatus, Conduits, and Conductors Electrical apparatus, conduits, and conductors for which a permit is required, but for which no fee is herein set forth $38.22 (This fee is not applicable when a fee is paid for one or more services, outlets, fixtures, appliances, power apparatus, busways, signs, or other equipment) Other Electrical Inspections (per hour) $114.67 Page 21 2006 PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT CONTINUED GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING APPLICATIONS Amendments Amendment to the General Plan Diagram or Text $ 1,000 + T & M Amendment to text of Chapter 30 "Development Regulations" of the Alameda Municipal Code $ 1,000 + T & M Rezoning Zone Change $ 1,000 + T & M Master Plan Master Plan $ 1,000 + T & M Master Plan Amendment $ 1,000 + T & M Planned Development Planned Developmemt $ 500 + T & M Planned Development Amendment $ 501 + T & M Development Agreement Development Agreement $ 1,000 + T & M Periodic Review of Development Agreement $ 300 + T & M Variance Variance $1,000 Exception (Administrative) $200 Extension of variance which has not been vested $ 200 + T & M Use Permit Use Permit $1,500 Design Review Design Review - Major $1,700 Design Review - Minor (Routed) $200 Design Review - OTC $30 Extension of Design Review not yet vested $200 + T & M SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS Tentative /Parcel Map Tentative /Pacel Map up to 4 lots $2,040 Subdivision Map 5 -25 lots $5,500 Subdivsion Map > 25 lots (including Condo Conversion) $1,000 + T & M SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS Deposit Lot Line Adjustment Lot Line Adjustment (base of 2 lots) $400 Environmental Review Categorical Exemption (does not include $25 Alameda County Clerk fee) included in cost of entitlement Initial Study $600 + T & M Administrative Charge on outside preparation of Initial Study, Negative Declaration or EIR 10% of Contract Price Mitigation Monitoring T & M Appeals Appeal to Planning Board $100 Appeal to the City Council $100 Page 22 CO 0 0 N o I +T &MI o o 0 H + o +T &MI 0 +T &MI H + I- + T &MI 006$ 0 in H3 0 0 N Ef} 0 0 N Ei? r 0 N EA $202 Demolition Certificate of Approval by HAB (Principal and accessory structure; removal of protected trees) Performance Agreement to allow occupancy before all requirements are completed Demolition Certificate of Approval by staff (accessory structures) Home Occupation Request for payment of parking in lieu fee Historical Sign Designation List Classification Zoning Compliance determination Deed Restriction Certificate of Complaince Changes in Historical Building Stud y Alteration to City Monuments Traffic Study /Review PUBLIC WORKS Fees noted in red or highlighted in red boxes are subject to Council Review. Maps & Prints: 500 scale - Alameda (color - 36" x 84 ") $22 500 scale - Alameda black and white $11 1000 scale - Alameda (color - 18" x 44 ") $15 1000 scale - Alameda (black and white) $11 500 scale - BFI 22 x 30 $11 Aerials $11 plus $10 mailing Truck route, bike route $2 Traffic volume data sheets, radar speed data sheets $5 Assessor's parcel maps (whole page available at Alameda County Assessor's Office) $1.00 per portion Sanitary Sewer Plan (18 x 22) $16 Storm Drain Plans (18 x 22) $16 Other Prints (22 x 30) $22 Plans and Specifications: Standard Plans $30 Bike Plans $30 Standard Subdivision Improvement Specs $30 General Services: Research of Records (no charge for first 15 minutes) Transportation Operational Requests - nonsafety related Transportation Technical Team/Transportation Committee -- Request for or appeal of actions* *Fee is refundable if enacted /approved Recycling/Trash Exception Application* $86 per hour Time and Materials $60 $86 * The Public Works Director shall set a deposit schedule. Time & Materials - Engineering time charged per cost allocation plan, approximately $99.82 /hour Master Fees - Revised 7/06 DEPOSIT 8/16/2006 16 PUBLIC WORKS CONTINUED DEPOSIT Permit enter Applications: jBuilding Permit - Combination Building Permit (Non - Development) j Plan Check - Residential Remodel /Addition single family $260 + T &M ** Plan Check - Residential Remodel /Addition multi- family $400 + T &M ** I Plan Check - Commercial - multi building $400 + T &M ; • Plan Check - Commercial - one building $260 + T &M 1 j j Supplemental Plan Check T &M ** Development Applications Planned Development T &M Planned Development Amendment T &M Final Development Plan T &M Parking in -lieu Fee Determination T &M :Review of Master Plans /Development Plans: -� •� -' —"—"—"—"—"—"—"—" - !(Engineering services for review of developer applications will be at time and materials) 1 Master Plan T &M ** Master Plan Amendment 1 T &M ** 1 Development Plan (Also see Property Development category) T &M ** j • Development Plan Amendments T &M ** Development Agreement/Amendment (Also see Property Development Category) T &M ** j General Plan Amendment T &M ** Environmental Review T &M ** 1 Traffic Review T &M 1 :Concrete Permits 1 Sidewalk repair /replace install 0 to 20 linear feet $0 Sidewalk repair /replace install 21 to 50 linear feet $25 j • Sidewalk repair /replace install 51 to 200 linear feet $75 1 Sidewalk repair /replace install > 200 linear feet $300 j Curb Cut/Driveway (each) each '-----•-------- �—•-- --- )----------- -- -•- --- --- •-- --- •-- ---- - --- --- $560'-- --- --- ---- -- -•- -- --- -' Sidewalk Repair - concrete permit ;Right -of -way Permits: j Encroachment Permits - Construction >1 week $520 1 Encroachment Permits - Temporary <1 week $65 ** 1 Encroachment Permits - Permanent $390 ** 1 Excavation Permit - Includes inspection $290 Per Block 1 I Excavation Permit - Point Repair $54 j Each signalized intersection - additional charge $195 1 100% recovery to be phased in over three years: j I FY 07/08 390 /block 290 /sig. Intersection i FY 08/09 520 /block 390 /sig. Intersection I ** The Public Works Director shall set a deposit schedule T &M = Time & Materials - Engineering time charged per Cost Allocation Plan, approximately $99.82 /hour Master Fees - Revised 7/06 8/16/2006 17 I PUBLIC WORKS CONTINUED Property Development - Applications may be reviewed by City staff or by consultant hired by the City at cost plus 10% Deposit is $10,000 unless otherwise specified Lot Line Adjustment Parcel Map (1 to 4 lots) Tentative /Final Map review Assessment District Formation On /Off site Public Improvement plan review - Commercial > 5 acres On /Off site Public Improvement plan review - Commercial < 5 acres On /Off site Public Improvement Inspection - Commercial > 5 acres On /Off site Public Improvement Inspection - Commercial < 5 acres On /Off site Public Improvement Plan Review - Residential >25 Lots On /Off site Public Improvement Plan Review - Residential 5 to 25 Lots On /Off site Public Improvement Plan Review - Residential < 5 Lots On /Off site Public Improvement Inspection - Residential >26 Lots On /Off site Improvement Inspection - Residential 1 to 25 Lots Grading Permit Inspection Grading Permit Inspection Grading Permit Inspection Grading Permit Inspection Grading Permit Inspection - Grading Permit Inspection - - Commercial < 1 Acre - Commercial 1 to 10 Acres - Commercial > 10 Acres - Residential 1 -4 Lots Residential 5 to 25 Lots Residential 26 to 50 Lots $1,500 $2,500 T &M (or Consultant Costs + 10 %) T &M (or Consultant Costs + 10 %) T&M (or Consultant Costs + 10 %) $6,900 $1,725 $1,100 T &M T &M $3,675 T &M $700 $325 $575 T &M $450 $575 $700 DEPOSIT $4,000 $2,500 j Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) Applies to all development sites SWPPP <1 acre $1,900 I SWPPP 1 -5 acres $2,550 I SWPPP 5 - 20 Acres $3,200 • SWPPP > 25 Acres-- •-------- - - - - -- $3,800 Special Event Permits Not all special events will require review by Public Works. Review determination will be made at time of application. Fees will be waived for nonprofit or public benefit events. Banner Permit - per banner /per location for install removal of banner $200 Block Party Permit - Requiring Engineering Review $20 Boat Show Permit - requiring Engineering Review T &M Film Permit T &M • Non - profit/Still Photography - street closure T &M All others - street closure T &M All Bridge closures T &M Rental of City Property (to be determined) Race, Walk -a -thon, parade permit T &M Relocation Permit (housing moving) T &M Street Fair Permit T &M Tent Permit Under4,500 sq. ft. T &M Over 4,500 sq. ft. T &M Permits - Solid Waste & Recycling - Hauler Fees (C &D Fees) Basic fee $600 Reporting fees ($100 per hour) Program Fee Impact Mitigation Fee Performance Security Bond $100 minimum due at filing $8.67 per ton hauled $2.86 per ton hauled $95 T &M - Time and Materials (Engineering time charges per Cost Allocation Plan, approximately $99.82/hr. Master Fees - Revised 7/06 8/16/2006 18 City of ALAMEDA USER FEE STUDY PROPOSED FEE REVISIONS FIRE PREVENTION Fee or Service Name / Description Current Fee Proposed Fee A -3 Occupant Load of 50 to 299 without a Stage $ 125 $ 264 A -2.1, Occupant Load of 300 or more without a Stage $ - $ 264 A -2 Occupant Load of less than 1000 with a Stage $ 125 $ 264 A -1 Occupant Load of 1000 or more with a Stage $ 125 $ 264 Group B Occupancies: 1 -2,500 SF $ 63 $ 192 Group B Occupancies: 2,501 -5,000 SF $ 63 $ 264 Group B Occupancies: each additional 2,500 SF $ 63 $ 72 Group E -1 Occupancies (Elem Schools) $ 125 $ 480 Group E -1 Occupancies (Jr High or Middle Schools) $ 125 $ 696 Group E -1 Occupancies (High Schools) $ 125 $ 1,417 Group E -2 Occupancies $ 125 $ 156 Group E -3 Occupancies (Non residential day care) or any residential bldg use for day care in excess 12 children) $ 125 $ 156 Group E -1 Occupancies (Public Elem Schools) $ 125 $ 120 Group E -1 Occupancies (Public Jr High or Middle Schools) $ 125 $ 174 Group E -1 Occupancies (Public High Schools) $ 125 $ 354 Group E -2 Occupancies (Public) $ 125 $ 39 Group H -1, H -2, H -3 Occupancies (1 -2,500 SF) $ 63 $ 91 Group H -1, H -2, H -3 Occupancies (each additional 2,500 SF) $ 63 $ 36 Group 11.1 Occupancies (1 -2,500 SF) $ 125 $ 156 Group 11.1 Occupancies (each additionl 2,500 SF) $ 125 $ 72 Group 11.2 Occupancies $ 125 $ 156 Group 12 Occupancies $ 125 $ 228 Group 13 Occupancies $ 125 $ 372 Group M Occupancies $ 63 $ 156 Group R -1 3 -10 Units $ 63 $ 192 Group R -1 11 -20 units $ 125 $ 228 Group R -1 21 -30 units $ 250 $ 336 Group R -1 31 -60 units $ 250 $ 408 Group R -1 61 -90 units $ 375 $ 552 Group R -1 >90 units $ 500 $ 696 Group S -1 Occupancies $ 63 $ 264 Group S -2 Occupancies $ 63 $ 264 Group S -3 Occupancies $ 63 $ 192 Group S -4 Occupancies $ 63 $ 264 Group S -5 Occupancies (hanger) $ 63 $ 264 Marinas $ - $ 408 PLAN CHECKING / PERMITS Prebuild Conferences $ 125 $144/hr Fire Alarm $ 125 $ 147 Fire Sprinkler - New < 20 heads $ 188 $ 216 Fire Sprinkler - New 20 -200 heads $ 250 $ 288 Fire Sprinkler - New 20 -200 heads (each head) $ 1 $ 1 Fire Sprinkler - New >200 heads $ 375 $ 432 Fire Sprinkler - New >200 heads (each head) $ 1 $ 1 Fire Sprinkler - TI < 20 heads $ 125 $ 144 Fire Sprinkler - TI 20 -200 heads $ 188 $ 216 Fire Sprinkler - TI 20 -200 heads (each head) $ - $ 1 Fire Sprinkler - TI >200 heads $ 250 $ 288 Fire Underground $ 250 $ 288 Fire Hydrants $ 25 $ 128 Each Additional Fire Hydrant $ 25 $ 25 Standpipes $ 250 $ 288 8/16/2006 3 City of ALAMEDA USER FEE STUDY PROPOSED FEE REVISIONS FIRE PREVENTION Fee or Service Name / Description Current Fee Proposed Fee Standpipes Each Additional Outlet $ 10 $ 12 Suppression System - Hood $ 188 $ 216 Suppression System - Agents $ 250 $ 288 TANKS Install AGST <= 2K gals $ 125 $ 144 TANKS Install AGST > 2K gals $ 250 $ 288 TANKS Install UGST $ 375 $ 432 TANKS Install Piping only $ 125 $ 144 TANKS Remove Residential $ 188 $ 216 TANKS Remove Commercial $ 375 $ 432 TENT PERMITS 201 to 400 square feet (in total) $ 250 $ 48 401 to 1500 square feet (in total) $ 375 $ 72 1501 to 15,000 square feet (in total) $ - $ 144 15,001 to 30,000 square feet (in total) $ - $ 288 Over 30,000 square feet (in total) $ - $ 432 SPECIAL PERMITS Burn & Weld (routine welding operation) $ 125 $ 144 Film Permit $ 63 $ 279 Fireworks - Display $ 125 $ 415 Fireworks - Theatrical $ 125 $ 415 Fireworks - Special Effects $ 125 $ 415 Fumigation and storage $ 125 $ 144 Carnivals, Fairs & Special Events $ - $ 415 STANDBY FIRE PERSONNEL AND /OR EQUIPMENT (AT HOURLY RATE) Equipment without staff $ 72 $80 /hr Standard Fire Engine without staff $ 150 $165/hr Staff Vehicle without staff $ 35 $39 /hr Quint/Ladder Truck without staff $ 200 $221/hr Technical Rescue without staff $ - $110 /hr Fire Boat without staff $ - $110 /hr Ambulance $ - $83 /hr Support Materials (variable) At cost per type and amount required At cost per type and amount required Personnel Per current contract salary including benefits Per current contract salary including benefits MISC FEES Copies of Fire Reports $ 1 $ 1 NEW FEES FALSE FIRE ALARM FEES 2nd false alarm 3rd false alarm 4th ea additional Excessive or Malicious residential False Alarms Causing Response of Fire Apparatus (per calaendar quarter) $ 63 $ 125 $250 $375 Excessive or Malicious Commercial False Alarms Causing Response of Fire Apparatus (per calaendar quarter) $ 125 $ 250 $375 $375 Response due to "Failure to Notify" the Fire Department when working on or testing Sprinkler or Fire Alarm System $ 125 $ 125 $125 $125 8/16/2006 4 On file in the City Clerk's Office: Maximus /City of Alameda User Fee Study Final Report Approved as to Form CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. AMENDING MASTER FEE RESOLUTION NO.12191 TO REVISE AND STREAMLINE THE PLANNING & BUILDING DEPARTMENT, PUBLIC WORKS AND FIRE DEPARTMENT FEE SCHEDULES WHEREAS, the Alameda Municipal Code and the California Government Code provide that the City Council shall set fees reasonable to recover the cost of providing various services by resolution; and WHEREAS, the City Council, at the August 27, 1991 Special Council meeting, directed City staff to amend the Alameda Municipal Code to reflect that City fees shall be set by City Council Resolution; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 12191 ( "Master Fee Resolution "), as amended codifies existing fees for various City services and permits; and WHEREAS, State law authorizes local governments to charge fees for services based on the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that fees for various City services and permits are set forth in the attached Exhibit "A ". BE IT FURTHER RESOVELED that pursuant to Ordinance No. 1928, the City fees are subject to administrative adjustments not greater than 5% annually over the existing recovery levels. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all fees established by Master Fee Resolution No. 12191 which are inconsistent with fees established by this Resolution are hereby repealed. Resolution #5 -B 9 -5 -06 co N • ADMINISTRATIVE AND MISC. FEES PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT 0 0 0 0 co 0 0 0 0 0 VJ EH 0 0 O a O 0 0 0 0 0 Ei? 0 O 0 0 a 0 0 63 0 0 cI 00 O 0 tp 0 0 0 6 Fc Tts a GH 00 a 5% of Applicable Permit Fees 0 a L co a 0, a) L (0 0 a) per cubic yard m 0_ a) co U 0 Q. co 0 t a) L5 2 S a a c rn c � 0 v m U m O o E a) m c 0 a (0 w O C m o rn a 0 O .•p a m O m m m c c rn 'co 0 .Q v 0 m � '5 5 0 L Cr) m c ' 'c c CO a o 0 U 0 .v ma) a) L (d U 0 o LL 0 o u! c U � U (d •- E � E E 0 o c D o a)"- rn5 0 2C.co + LL moo_ C� 15 8 15 0 or'Sc N 0 Q .0> E m a7 ' .0 4m. .0 CC g > LL r � m U a) m co 0) m U m 0) c a) E a O a) 0) 0 a) 0) 0) a a) cts a N a c 0 0 ai C C U 0 a Permits with a Valuation of $5,000 and over (0 W LL x x co in C r • .0 • C co L E ro E U a o m N 0 NC a .0 8 — c U 0 U .c .c ° 0. a 0 0 Co U) 0 U E0 c E ns T T E 0.. V T T 0 x x N x x ✓ T ;- L co co T � c `O a E 'PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT CONTINUED E AND MISC. FEES 1 00 (r a o M z o O 0 fA o o O O 0 64 o O I- Time and Materials tas nnl 1. Times anti Matarioicl 0 aN ai -0 r 6} ) y )'C i a) !222 ) 2'c ) a) E : p 0 '0 CO C as a) a) E jz 0 '0 r 64 CO vs c a) c a) E 0 a) '0 N 64 $1.500 dennsit.. Tima anti Matariaic $1.500 denosit .. Tim anri Matariaic ) S ) 1 ' I ■ t. I- o N4 0 0 o aN a) V 0 ill r 64 0 0 -0 iOnootoo00 NLONLOL() a) L 7 TS u! a) Der address 1 Der hour each each a) Cc 0)) each per day T vs -o L . 0. 0 1 v m a) m E o 0 N O a) U as o. to 0) c Y 0 cts .0 a) a) 0 E .c U 0 a) a • a) Q a) per day per day per day DMINISTRATIVI y State Law) Charges are determined by each Departments Plan Check time plus daily rates of: $65.00 o O O 6 $14.00 Q I • Chantabie Solicitation Permit I 0) 1 I D. E Non- Protit/Still Photography - no street closure Non- Profit/Still Photography - street closure All Others - no street closure All Others - street closure All Bndge closures Day One Day Two to Day Fifteen Day Sixteen onward Rental of City Property use of metered Parking Space use of Non - Metered Space (per each 20 I.f.) I I 1 Irermi History and Unit Determinatic • co E 0. ' I ►t Hecords (over 15 minute (Public Records Request) I Brit Permits (Fees waived 1 I Banner Permit Bingo Permit IBIock Party Permit Boat now Permit 1 Race, Walk- a -thon, Parade Relocation Permit Street Fair Permit Tent Permit under 4,500 s.f. Over 4,500 s.f. I . Penang Hestrictions I 1 ' c i iv FEE = Four times the . I I I F ' I L z L_0L 0 CC Cn z 0 z Z > z z _.1 0 0 d w 0 0 T 0 w 4 8 O 69 N Il) a co O 49 n 69 N (l) d9 409 4 N 4 C'9 cd a co N 4} O r 69 0 0 a co 0 0 nt 6r9 ai ER N N 69 N 69 a 0) (f) 69 M 0 0 69 CV 689 10 H9 N 49 00•) CV 669 0) 4} O O) 609 co O N d9 u, co 2 0 O) 69 CV 69 N EFT LO M O a 0 0 69 CV u? 6T9 co 69 O 69 0 a a, M 609 O 0 O d9 O E9 CO 69 O 0) M 69 ON) co l[) 4} 0) 0) 409 69 0 0 69 n 69 0) N to co 069 49 Cr) N 69 N 0 409 0000O(0 80(OM(O c% 1�OONCACOCOMONrMNOee��O((� N175(� 00M0(OO�Or (O (O SS OIOCOCO(DO+— CON�t00CA �Y V Opt 0M0 0_I • t( 7r OMC AG CVMCAC>09C()htgNMCArM(-0)N('40) C)(OOiC+M(n�CD(OIgCNIp 494989 r69r69te69.(TEAMr69rrr0)e� CV C9 rrrr49Cc��rrrr 49 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 E9 EF1 EH EFT EA 49 4T EF} EPr EfT 69 4� 49. 69- 69 E9. E9 mm'Qd > ,_ z r O= aoI,yV4' 4).5,/ *1 I $13,499 g)3,4b.Hl fral 7�n r CO N. fFJfAEREA04 ). C)000 CV cc IM00r1 CO r 69 C 00 co EF h CO co 69 03 r -0)00 r C 9T 69 N NM (D r 6N 69 0 r rr te M(.0)CO(000) N A r (C) 6964(9 CO CA ) O 0 6 el- 0 M(Oa'Nd 0) co MNrN Oi A 0 C O T M 69 F ( N 9r EFT 69 ET 69 N 69 N0 co 69 63. CO tt V d p i•+.04 $18.08 $19,100 5k7 2Rc N CO lfl CV ER r 0 (0 tF N CO 8 CO EH 0 0 (0 0) 69r69E96 0 M 0 T CV (0 N 0 h C9 N M (0 r `t 0 00 0 M h 00 (C) CO 414 W.rdi $14,987 $821 $920 $1,617 $2,214 $3,432 $5,820 $1,275 O r C9 r 1 (C) r N 49EFT6964 O0 M C'') r CO M (C) N et O 0) 2000n 0 0 000 r 0 0 (f) 0 0 O ,— 200001 0 0 0 O 10 0 0 0 0 0 CO O O T 0 0 ul r 0 0 000 0) 0 0 0 0 (0 tp r 30,000 250 1,250 2,500 5,000 12,500 25,000 500 0 0 0 0 N 1() 0 0 O ,— 25'000I 0 0 O O 10 E 0 c c° to c Restaurant Restaurant T. I. Small Assembly co c m = N Q co Q PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT CONTINUED q- 0004('(-L0r- ;5 := V 0000400 0) 0(00410000 0�000Oh0CA(000DI�TnMO�t07 W h000(000Ogr f�Z?SI23P. CO J • (O COmide4 0004 Gto mini rC+5NM10M 7r li dv5NMCO(OCACOIt) (0 0 69 CO O M CO t� 6)C9 r 64r r 63r f96363bi6969({}'({�bibi�6363(A 69 64 64 63 6? 6} 63 ER 69 63 69 69 63 63 cC °acl Z o= 0 N- D ce (0_ Z O r U — N r CO 10 0) t0 N N CO 0) N CO T 'Z r 0 0 CO N N. CO r O (D L CO r 0 CO CO O o 0 T M O o } o O 0) 0) O00 r h CO O 0 O0 r h 0 0 T N N ) 00 ) CO 00 ) 8 0) N 0N 0 1,2 (0 N O r 1r 0 V of vi 1n co N M (O T N M tr r T N v r N 69636>6369r 6969696469 6469696969 6969. 6969 696463616964696966 6 3 0 U w 0) 03 cc • cr u- J 0 U w 11 0 U) 00 0) 49 (0 N to 69 N (0 CV 69 (0 0 69 (D 0 00 61 O 0 69 (O 0 CV 63 CO 0) 0) 0 61 0�) C'9 63 0 0) (o N ea 0 CO C0 63 0) 0 00 0) 63 O (0 69 C*) 6 (7 69 0 69 (0 0 669 0 0 CO 69 O) co CO 63 OD (0 a 49 609 69 co (!0 O 63 (•0� ('7 63 0) 69 Nr Lq N 69 0 69 op 49 0 (O 69 CO 0) 63 00 0 U w OD 00 04 N 49 0 co 49 0 CO CO 69 O O 69 0 N (0 69 (0 104 O 0 0) 69 n N 69 v 69 0) (r0 0 64 cm '1) 0 669 0 0 63 co 49 (TO N 69 N 63 O ((00 69 Nr (4) 0 69 Nr 0 69 00 663 N 49 O op 69 0 0 u0 N 0 0 0 1() 0 0 0 p O 0 0 N 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 N O O O 0 0 0 N O O O N 0 O O O O O O O N 0 o 0 0 0 0 N O O O 10 0 0 O O 0 0 0 N O O O O 0 0 0 O 0 0 O 1O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O N O 0 O 10 O O O 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 10 0 O O O 0 O O O N 0 o co O 0 0 0 O 0 O O O O O O O 1!) 0 0 O 0 O O O N O 0 O O 0 0 O O O O 0 Z a U U 0 w a U 0 U g 0 CO Laundromat m Medical Office m U 0 Preschool /School (n N W w CONSTRUCTION TYPES: N, IV N, V N EACH ADM__ 100 SQ. FT. $5.15 d� $12.361 rO(00000D cdp0)0000))O) 6960969692.2. $35.981 $24.491 000)0) f�MO MFR 0O ix d96n9b9 0)N $8.821 @if 7A rOON 0fNlOimp�NNMrrs) 469 ^1�0d'N 604 69fA c4 C90DN000IDg MONfO�(poiocou, V2 69 69. III N, III BASE COST $850 Md' LON. On X co 69 $2,292 'd' 0000 0N0r 100 us 69669 0nrOncDrOf�00��01- co • 696949 0000 (O0)r0 1ii0rr N: o 0 cola6969 OOr(�Nrl'3 00090 0)COf�NI�UV� .69696N969 V OC� gn0)rNh NNI C0rN 1000 69 9 f $3,027 rN0 Mr(0 000 EA496fA69 W O Efil)O PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT CONTINUED q- 0004('(-L0r- ;5 := V 0000400 0) 0(00410000 0�000Oh0CA(000DI�TnMO�t07 W h000(000Ogr f�Z?SI23P. CO J • (O COmide4 0004 Gto mini rC+5NM10M 7r li dv5NMCO(OCACOIt) (0 0 69 CO O M CO t� 6)C9 r 64r r 63r f96363bi6969({}'({�bibi�6363(A 69 64 64 63 6? 6} 63 ER 69 63 69 69 63 63 cC °acl Z o= 0 N- D ce (0_ Z O r U — N r CO 10 0) t0 N N CO 0) N CO T 'Z r 0 0 CO N N. CO r O (D L CO r 0 CO CO O o 0 T M O o } o O 0) 0) O00 r h CO O 0 O0 r h 0 0 T N N ) 00 ) CO 00 ) 8 0) N 0N 0 1,2 (0 N O r 1r 0 V of vi 1n co N M (O T N M tr r T N v r N 69636>6369r 6969696469 6469696969 6969. 6969 696463616964696966 6 3 0 U w 0) 03 cc • cr u- J 0 U w 11 0 U) 00 0) 49 (0 N to 69 N (0 CV 69 (0 0 69 (D 0 00 61 O 0 69 (O 0 CV 63 CO 0) 0) 0 61 0�) C'9 63 0 0) (o N ea 0 CO C0 63 0) 0 00 0) 63 O (0 69 C*) 6 (7 69 0 69 (0 0 669 0 0 CO 69 O) co CO 63 OD (0 a 49 609 69 co (!0 O 63 (•0� ('7 63 0) 69 Nr Lq N 69 0 69 op 49 0 (O 69 CO 0) 63 00 0 U w OD 00 04 N 49 0 co 49 0 CO CO 69 O O 69 0 N (0 69 (0 104 O 0 0) 69 n N 69 v 69 0) (r0 0 64 cm '1) 0 669 0 0 63 co 49 (TO N 69 N 63 O ((00 69 Nr (4) 0 69 Nr 0 69 00 663 N 49 O op 69 0 0 u0 N 0 0 0 1() 0 0 0 p O 0 0 N 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 N O O O 0 0 0 N O O O N 0 O O O O O O O N 0 o 0 0 0 0 N O O O 10 0 0 O O 0 0 0 N O O O O 0 0 0 O 0 0 O 1O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O N O 0 O 10 O O O 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 10 0 O O O 0 O O O N 0 o co O 0 0 0 O 0 O O O O O O O 1!) 0 0 O 0 O O O N O 0 O O 0 0 O O O O 0 Z a U U 0 w a U 0 U g 0 CO Laundromat m Medical Office m U 0 Preschool /School (n N W w 0 O - J 0 W z J a PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT CONTINUED W 0_ r 0 S C0 z 0 z > z > z z J 2 0 (1 co 00 r 0) O 69 N 64 (0 O a O O 69 9 69 n O 9 d' C9 69 O 1rd 69 N O 49 O MO 0) O 669 (0 ■ cri 49 COO 69 9 69 9 a T (9 49 (9 N 69 0) 69 O m O N ER 0) O 1n O 9 N 69 9 0 w 69 69 9 00 CO 0 9 O N 9 N 69 N 9 O O 9 O (r) 69 (0 1() 69 d' O ER- co co r N 9 COO M 69 0) co 9 N 9 O 9 0 COO c 69 CO 9 69 N a O 9 0) O (0 2 9 w O_ z 0 H 0 T� 1- z 0 0 J 0 0 Q S d 0) 0 0 r CO 69 N_ 9 0) 9 co C)i 69 0 ;t N 69 1() 69 9 0 M 9 9 7 a 9 op 9 CO Cn 69 M 69 co 71- M 9 CV N 69 69 69 O CA 69 0 0 w r` O) 69 00 0 69 N CO 69 0 co 9 (0 CO N 69 O O 69 N. co 0) 69 M 69 (O a co 10 0) 9 M 69 O O W 0- z 0 1= 0 CC z 0 0 m u_ Q (L J 0 0 0 w 0) 0 O (0 CO C9 69 0) CO 69 O CO 9 0 0) O 69 O (0 69 0) O 9 co (O d69 00)) 9 69 N- 6:3 N. 9 (f) 64 (O 69 O O 69 CA (Ci 69 1 9 O O 9 CO 9 O 9 O) O 0) 9 to O a co (O 69 co O 9 O N 9 0 0 w co O O 9 M N TE9 O 0) 9 0 (0 664 1() 69 0 O) 0 O 0) 9 O) 0) 9 VO 0 9 O (0 69 co O 0) CV 69 N O 9 0) CO N 9 (o to O 69 0 (0 0 69 O 10 M 69 M O 69 u, O a CO O 9 O O O t d 0) 0 O O O 0 O O (0 N 0 0 O O 1n O O O N 0 O 0 O 0 O O O 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 O N 0 O O N O O co O O 0 O O N O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 N 0 O 0 0 O O 1f) O O O O O 0 O O N 0 O O O O O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 1±) O O 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 O 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 (4 ) 0 O O O 0 0 0 O O 0 0 O O O r 0 z a- 0 U 0 w 0 0 v ro S 0) 0 0 J c c Repair Garage 0 O U E 0 0 0 (0 u_ 0 0 U Cn g 0 M W N S CO S 000oN.co00I`, 01 - ERE963 1- r^ co 00'I0000)r CVCVMOcc}}NrrNCV EA) 69E969ER69f9H)6 OO 000N1- 0 0 N IpCO ERR.- N N 0 (R CyCOCON NT tAii ui(C)NCA(G 646969 Cr) 000 .-69 COttt`COt".00O ChrNthrCq 6 InCC>rODCYjNNCM 63 69 69(AE9ERER69 Cr) COet N CA N ER W I ILVO Cti AO4 _ ((ti9t - ER eR any ER CO (rO E963 CO C(OOE'D E969r O O C n $1,0051 $1.766 $4421 ) )r )ER N d' CCOO r r E9 O CO 6 E9 CO .1- C+) r ER 6i CE (C T Ef, $3,8931 $6.036 r CO r0)C7NCMMrCri(V 69 CO 0) 63 et r CO O O 0 69 64 63 tO C) N. 0 69 69 CO r 64 Cr) 0) 0 CO 0 CO h r O th r N N Cri 63 63 69 ER ER r in et 0 r n CA CC) u) ,- 63 69 CO (n o O) U) t--: E9 63 In Cr) r) 63 CO t` co - C1) is 0 ‘:1- 0O tri ER 63 CO th CC) 69 et N CO CO h: ER 69 $10.21 $4.37 1 ) CO ICi 1 63 N t} 64 CO CO to ER O) CO CO O N I's C) ^ r N CO M th CO 6463 ER 64 O to to O N CO r r - 63f9E9 CO N 0 NCO to 0 0 O r to t� 0 O N to CO (t) CO r_ h N to; E9 h t() O N N N 0 N CO E9 EREfi69 to 0 CO tO CO O) th 69 CO In to 69 0 N CO 613 0 N O) m 0 tt ER E9 CO C) N ER 0 to N O 0) CO M EA 6369 $2,024 $3,555 1 10 1 d' 1 tO n .E9 0 CO N r to EACH ADD'L 100 SQ. FT. co (n 69 $10.78 $4.61 $3.14 $3.70 O M r 69 9 CO CO CM 69 LO'P$W LOTS Z9'Z$ 171- Z$ L'Rck $9.78 $6.65 d' th CO LO t: to E9 64 N 0 tt E9 et CO tO (D cy Cn 0 CO LO (O 63 64 N t- E9 O) 4 r CA CV ER Eft $12.25 $5.24 N eY 63 O O) 63 $2,135 $3,751 $5,134 $7,956 $13,500 $2,165 $2,4271 $4,266 $5,844 $9,060 $15,360 $1,345 $1,508 $2,648 $3,626 0 N CV tt (0 tO L.6 O 69 64 th CO (O h` 1- CO 69 6. O 0 O) t- E9 (n N- N 69 th (O O co ti tt�� N 64 69 $2,4281 $4,266 me nnn th to 0 On EA O O 0 C9 15,000 • 30,000 60,000 150,000 on/1 /IAA O O O O 0 to 25,000 50,000 100,000 250,000 500,000 1,000 5 0 00 10,000 20,000 50,000 100,000 O O LO N (C1 O O 0 O 25,000 50,000 3,000 15,000 30,000 an nnn O O O O T 1 C0 _( c- �. �, _ Health Care :° c 0) °) o �n - via, •cL = ~ m m a = c E Q V - J z 0 0 W U a -J 0. NrMOOeNr(00�1'�h .-1-000000 V �t1�gf�rO}fNOO 00DCr70M0pnpOj�Q cOCJ • cg 6 bL(ft0R�6969� � dn3���EA�� � � E79�6N9 �(� f13r • C�cc� azaO >0Qoo 0>Wr gZ COO^^"t CO COTOIq .cc}}1- N000)(ON(00)Nf�MOCOC000N0)ttCO CA r 14- CA CO N co O) C9 0 O O O O O O M OD IA M r r O M r O r r� O) O N � cI) C1 MNO)OJ VC OC OtONNNNNN�C0t nrMC001A000OCpt�M�}M jMCrJ Z Z r N M 1p M % G%9 i° 69 (A. ! % 4) r. t Ch 69 6 r NCr� CA r r N M C� CA 0 64 EA (869646969H9696 (6(8 696969 6969 -6 (869 -686969 - 69.6969 0 co CO O) C 0) CO N (d flJ Ctl (O (9 Cd N CCI (9 (9 (9 CC) 0 0) r 0 CO 01 0) 0 I' CO CO O) CO CO t` O Cr) )naOCO(nor�2 c c2222222224�cyrnr.0 rrroornvrnrnor.ao J r CO M CV C1 co CO t` V Cn h (V 4 CC) [t �} CO N C� (C) 4 Cn 69 fA 69 EA b4 69 69. g. 4940. Eft rg 69 69 ER CB. 49 r 69 49 at,. fR Z 0 l 1!. NM CONGO N (d (0 (9 (9 (9 C() (0 N (9 CC) (0 000)000 �t1�C000OOCO 0 CO00 U= ) CO 0) ▪ c cc2`c2c22222rnrvr�d NIA [nroCO VCDCO _ O r CA CO r CO CO N CO O O N CO CO CC 6968tod6964r �-9r6 hrr M hrrrC6�} (Or ff? 64 69 69 ff9 69 CA 64 69 r6�i 64 EA ER (fl 69 17 Eft Zr0 0_W U —V) Q m r t` M O t` CO CC (d Q1 N R1 CC) ([f (9 N (C (b (d O) CO CO CO r N M CO N n CO N O LC) CO O) d' O ... °' CDMr CO ▪ C 2 2222 c 22 C C2 Cr?r CO CO 03 V OOMM CO r'M r`r Co r`O M 0 �'rO M07e} M O CO (f) (6 CXI M t\ r9 7r(ri r`NCO r9 V' Cn (9 69 rER w 69 CR EA 69 & 69 69 49 CO 69 g 69 Cl9 69 CA g 69 69 ER CA W < C'if m xc 0 o OLLWo co 0 CC (O 10 0itN (o 01 07 (0 (9 N (8 (0 CC N (8 CO co r 0)stC0-t0NCOO)001 CO DCO CO0J CO r 0) CO 0) — — — — (O M M O N O CC) (0 0 CD N. r CO N (0 0) DUB CO r r, O co cO C C C C C222 C2 Cr MMNO4ONM �t 41- O) N co co NO co r0MCgF (0 r 01 c�i�t ONN((f)N[}r01MCn(0(0 i- 0 69 69 69 69 69 ..- EH 69 69 69 69 69 69 63 H3 69 (8 ,— 6969696969 69 Z O W O CO m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 1- M r co 0 CO 00 r 1- C'7 d- Cf) h r N 0) 10 h r 1I) O' O O O N O O O O O N O 0 O O 0 r 1- t0 O r 1- et 0 0 r 1- 0 O r M N 0 W z H z 0 0 1— z W 2 I- 2 Q o. w 0 0 E Z 0 W y z O }Q 9) z 6 0E-2 Ur 0 0 ot$ • y m 0 rn c_A o Q C m 0 lC1 c m 0) (`0 0 U v x 0 J 0 v) 0 U) U PLAN CHECK ONLY hi >y.. 1- z oz _> gZ S O U >UO8 �I- ?co 0 LE C1) C% Q • Cr y.... !a !o )f∎COCOet(2 )rOf∎f∎0ts1n0CAN id03 CVd,di69did04 CAOC9COCDLOTONCDMD ,-di co. 000(Oet di di 69diW (O cg pp NTCnIONNCOC7CONrInCOPSUlCD 6699VIVVIE9 N(OT (O •-didididid4�didi6N969- 00 ODCO(OCANt 1- COC9 D � IL U Q m N O N TrN 69 E9 CD �• fR CO OP et et O etrM(O(OCOCOetOrCDCOTONet 2p� 69 CA CO ER CArCOrOCDOrCA(0Of- OD r7NC71ACA di O E9 07 E9 r E9 O 69 CD d3 CD N rrN�• E9 CO di O d3 OD FR OD f.rrCV 69 (NI (0 d9 C9lO O d} (O e t d9 r- O D MCACOpprr di 0)00 d9 EA (ONf- (0 69 Ch EA fO tlDCDOCOlf3(OOCo)T V d9 COOONd'CAN N MCOO E9 O 69 N Td3 r ti O rTNC(9� 69 O 69 et 69 N O9 CD 69 CONSTRUCTION TYPES: CC _ r > S S r S S EACH ADD'L r d Cn O O OTCOCDr(Or- CAerf f■ X696 ∎CDetetOetrNhCDhNOrNOm(OCOOCO r h D) -di r d9di (D rf`CDet 03 CVdjdi69d- N OD O) N-CAOf-DYf-000N(OCD(0 r- di�di696AEAd3 r O) (0 f4 OC) r O ,• 69 0) 9d3(H6 0) et 7t CO f� N ,T(O(0N CC) ,- NOO)CDet (0 d9696@69E9d•6 (C) (O CnOCOrr- CDht, O 4 0) 6969 Net 0') CO d' BASE COST (O r (O 696963 N r CO. rM $3,182 $4,358 10 (0 fie(D00N(OOOp '(pTrrcrJ d9r- O CO et f' 69696969ER� t- I- I■ CD et O O RT O h $1,2491 T O et rNCo 696369 (O et CO (O CO $5,2251 CO CO (C) r 69 1 $1,7541 T 0) ON(0 C'Me} 69d969r T NN T CAr NI' 0 -6969 CO T co.. O et o N $3,5841 0) O 0)(O .4= 6969 0 N: $12,900.1 O et 69 00 T- d3 $1,2611 $1,728 O CO CO N 69 0 (O 1 CONSTRUCTION TYPES: CC LL C I EACH ADD'L 100 SQ. FT. 00 02 1 69 $32.89 r CD T LO et D) .-691- D) N r $13.751 00 O (O d9CO1-d91- C0 O 4 O CO 4 O) O) D) CO r $14.241 CO tO'T Ni 6904 (C) CA 00 O TT $7.431 N f, 00 EA 00 CO O r-69 CO N N $12.74 f, et (C) 69E9696969. r h 0) OD co d' 0) CO ([) T C9 (0 $18.531 .7 CD n 696369 O If) (0 C) CO Nt N f- d9 0) 0) CV d3 CO O C'0 T�E969di69 O T CO 00 (D C+) O Nt Nr (C) 1 BASE COST CD Cr) O) 69 1 $2,174 O O T CO OD N 0) lA 69 69 CO O r CC) 69 $13,752 00 O O N 69 $2,252 (O (0 CD 05 69 h r et 1f) 69 O 0 et (b 69 $14,244 CA CD et. 69 O CO r 63 $2,9531 N Tr 0 Ni- 69 O h N (D di O 00 CO O $1,8781 (0 O r N 69 OD CD (O M 69 (0 (O 0 (A 63 O (0 00 N 69 $13,3251 $2,1831 $2,4481 O C') V 69 O O) CO (O di $9,1321 O OD et (. '- 00 (O f` 69 N ,(D CO 69 $1,513 $2,074 CO N 1, 69 SQ. FT. O O O T 5,000 10,000 20,000 50,000 100,000 0 0 O r 0 0 O (0 0 0 O O 20,0001 100,0001 0 0 O r 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 O N 50,0001 000'oo . 0 0 0 N 0 0 (0 N T 25,0001 50,0001 125,0001 250,0001 0 O O N 10,0001 20,0001 40,0001 0 0 0 O O r 0 0 0 O O N 0 0 O r 0 0 0 (f) 10,000 20,000 50,0001 U a. U o d ' I Hepair Garage ± o Z I ; Motor venicie t-uei Dispensing • • I vat-King Garage 1 n o z 1 ( open t'arking Garage 1 0 od CC 13 ro Other T. l.'s (Not Office or Retail) 1 U U 3 u) v) U (0 d) (n M C7 u) dI u) o N !PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT CONTINUED Oi w 0 z 0 0 m z 0 z Z Z z J ❑ Q O w O O cv 8 M 6 • 69 N 9 6 M a jno a M d9 9 c O O A 6 69 O co 0 0 cso w 0 69 a co 0 9 a) 69 0 9 3 0 (G a) oi 4. 0) O 0 C 0) o) 69 O N 9 to EAT 0 N 3 to 9 4. 1C71 vJ w z 0 — 0 1- 0 0 -J ❑ Q ll� 0 0 N 9 N 9 co 6 co 669 6 69 O (() 9 O 69 69 a) O 6 69 ui 69 0) 69 14) cci 69 co 0)) 6V 69 6 6 6 64 (0 O O 4 0 0 w Q 0 0) 69 N (0 69 O 6 O 0 0) (D 69 PLAN CHECK ONLY w 0 0 CC z 0 0 m u_ ❑ 0 Q 0 x 0 a) 9 d' 9 61) 0 0 w Q N. N M 69 ((0 0) 6g O M C 6H NSPECTION ONLY L a) 9 n Ch () 669 6 6 69 0 (r0 69 6 0) N 69 CO uCD) 6 69 M CO 0) 9 co O ui 69 r 69 N 69 M O 9 O co 9 O r 69 0 a 6 6 9 (0 b4 UO) 6 n 69 O CO O C6 69 6 6 O 69 69 0 N O 69 O O 0) 0) 69 co (60 664 (6) O O 69 6 6 a) 9 a) n 69 O N O 69 6 0) N 9 6 M 69 O O O N 0 O O O O O O VO O O O O O O O O O O N O O O N O O O O O 0 O O (N1 O O O 4. O O 0 O O O O 0 O N O 0 0 N O O O O O O 0 O V O O O O O O O O O O N O O O O O O (I) O O O O O O O O N O O 0 O 6 O 0 0 O O O O M O O O M O O O 6 O 0 0 0 O O O M 0 Z a. 0 0 0 0 0 w 0 0 0 z J_ J w 0) r 2 r 0 E 0 Q Q N Q (V Q 0 N PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT CONTINUED INSPECTION ONLY ^W z 0 R- 0 CC D z 0 0 z z z z O NN vi VJ 0 0 r co 0) co co 69 0 (N N CO 0) O N 69 O 6, co O NEfl a O 609 A (+) 6, N ti 69 co O 69 @) 1479- O in N 6, O N 0 0C 69 CO O ( 50 63 0 69 M N 69 03 6, 00) 69 CO an °�} 69 T 69 0 cti 69 50 (G 69 vJ 0 W Q co 0) M 0) CO LO 69 N. 0) CO 0 C*) CV 43 O 03 O a 0 LO r (0 O 6 2 0 03 CO 69 (00 O 6, T (D A Tr 69 0 O O 43 0) 0) 69 03 O 63 m N Tr Lq W z 0 H 0 1. 0) z 0 0 J 0 0 a2 0 0 (T0 M 6' O O N 6, O 63 1- (V 6, O 6,73. 6, Qo (C 6, O m cti O 6, co 0) 69 n 66 0) 64 49 (0 50 63 6, 0 W Q m. 0) v (0 69 A 63' 0 m (O E3 O N, m 669 0) O N (0 69 0) 6, (o O O 6, m V (O 69 CO CO ore (o O 6, (0 Lo (+9 69 O O 66 r n 69 (0 0) CO 4, (0o (0 4, 5') 69 66 uo co (() 69 Ln 69 A O 6, 0 a m 0 Lei 69 66 W a. z 0 H 0 /r z 0 0 cc u_ LL -J 0 0 0 0 CO 69 O CO Cb O M To- N (0 6, O 6, N CO C*) 63 609 O O N 66 O m LO 6, (0 O N 63 N O V3 0) 0) 0 69 0) O 6, O 6, m 03 Lci 69 N 6, N co 0) 0 W CO N N 00) 4 O co C73 (o tf) O c0 U) 66. O CV 6, N O O O_ 43 COO O N co N 0 0 6, 0) (r0_ 6, sNs}} LO CD 0) 0) 43 0 69 69 6, cci 69 O CD 00) O m co 0) co N m 69 m 64 co M 6) O N 6 0 to Lf d 0) 0 t0 N 0 0 O N O O O t[) O O O N O 0 O N O O t() 0 O O N O O O (C) 0 0 O O 0 O O N 0 0 O 0 O O to 0 0 O O 0 0 O O In 0 0 N O O O 0 0 O N O O O 0 O 0 O 0 0 O O N 0 O O O 0 (0 N O 0 0 (I) O 0 O O 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O >- 0 z 0 0 0 W 0 a) 0 Laundromat co U cro) U t. 0 0 0) g 0 m m m NSPECTION ONLY PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT CONTINUED (1i b • zv Z Z 0 W ---0 H 'z z =U U w 00 1-014) cc? CAr '9'9 r000N N�r- V CON COD• (00 N. 69fRT d4 6R d 6R ER 69 6R ttr 0)1)10(1-) �64�ER(� (00• a a E969 1AC0 (010000NCOrN O r COO LO ON 1pCO N CA C0:�1 l■ ;9 CO 07 0 1- CA CCCCCw�VVVv of of 69 69 69 lR 64 to 69 69 69 69 E9 (R CD CO ((0001 0 N 1A r CO f• st CA COCOr0NC7)CO U). (CI O (CI C0ND� 64�cR69ERr�ERE9 • CO CO <�O)rf0 NN NNCO0) 69 ER % 64 9 69 E CO f) a N 69 (O N CO r CO 0) J cG M OD O 69 fR ER • co (� o > � o z OT V LC) D (o CO HCC =O b44b4 Z U O _ m 1CO1OrrCONNrCV 001- 0rf�.�L t � V. NN V.r0M f1-) 04 • �/ 61-1-10,- 0,- () 699 ER 6 '9 '9� R664 9 69 N N. CO N CO r O) LO I0 - CO CO CO CO rnLAM M 03 u 69 d3 ER 64 E9 ER 1`. d'0hr ON0t`0) O<t CV 96 6 h: r ER E9ERr 691- 69 d4 ER- c0 O 1() 64 a0 1- 0 o 0) 'd• 0 1C) o (o O (O CD N 10 0) (0 0 10 r N N CO N. V 010(000'1 CO N-0 669 '9 '9 '9'9 69 604 N• ,- 66. 6E9 6M9 N (0 CO 0 CO (0 r C0 O(0, -001-7-0 NnL0NC0 O 10 in co a 69 ER69r vt 64 64 CO (00) (0.- • N 11) r CO N 0 ID CO CO V' V' CO CO (0 ER 691- - r- 6464U} 10 O) C1) 69 10 CO LO N J 0) CO N- N: V' O ¢o Z w ¢ 0 w 1- ✓ 0) 0 CO (0 U) CO 10) O r Co n CO 1C) N CO d- N CO N t\ r N 6 N 11) N- O U) 00 CO 0) 4 4 6 63 E9 ER N ER69 N r 0) E9 E9 1- r E9 E9 69 ER f9 ONO ID h IT, • ER- O 64 E9 0 O) 000 (O Co V to O r 6 (0 (o X64ze- 0) O cd E9 N.N- C00000 V0'Op 6 CO CO CO Ti (O O r96969ER'9 '9 O 69 O 69 U) 0 U w CO m CO CO 0 NCO N 64 69- N1)0 CID N10000'4' 4t CV 0 0 t- OD O CO t'- 0 (f) (O 0) CO et t1- r O V CA to OD CO CO 0) 4 Lt) d' 7oF 1f) h O 05' N C7 E M R 64 EA to- CO N CO N 0 0 V• CO • V' r r V• V' CO CO CO N 0) N 1f) 6 CO 6 6 4 V' 10 69 ER ER ER fR ER 64 to (00) 0 00)11-LO CO N 000 a) (o 00 0) Vw lf) r CO 0) CO c0O)N COCoM 64 ER1-r -E969 CO 69 O O 0) ER 0 N 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 r l() 0 000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01014 0 N1100rtoON1000 N6 0 00 00 0 0 0 N 14)) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O O O O O N O ▪ N •ct O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O r 1C) O N O O 1- N 0 0 O 0 N 0 0 O O 0 0 O O O >- U zw 1-0 8 Preschool /School -° c c co co (9 : v 2 O N O C 3 C 2 J 0 0 0 O 2 N W w 0) W LL N N 2 CO N 0 z 0 W 0. Z PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT CONTINUED w z 0 U cc ll1-^ v/ Z 0 J 0 Q U 6 d m 00 T co N (r0 E9 co N a (0 M 0 O a t0 4 r co n CO 63 a O 0 co v CO 69 n (0 69 a co O a 0 0) A n c0 63 0 (V co a c0 O co CO aD d9 0) O 69 ro O CO O) 69 co 0 w m 4 cri 0) CD Of (9 8 69 0) O a 0 cv 69 0 O (0 OT n a co D co 69 (0 0) co 0) co to E9 0) 00) 69 co O W o co (0 O 6. O (w J^ 4 to O a 0 O to 0 69 0 co 69 0 4 1- 10 6 69 69 M a 0 69 w O_ z 0 U 1- Z 0 J 0 0 S U d m 0 0 0) CO 63 (0) DT co ao 69 0) O N 69 0 N 0 a co 0 Eg 0) co cv O O 69 O Lri Eft 6 E9 Eft- O CO (() 69 0) cc! N to N NE9 O N 0) V) 0 w m 0) M 69 O' M 64 CO 0) M M 69 (0 0) cci O o O 0) O 6 0) O 0) O O n 69 0) O O co N 63 co 4 O 6 Eft N () O. E9 O O 0 0) E9 a O N O) Eft w 0 0 H 0 0 0 m LL cc LL J 0 0 S U m 0 0) CT) O Tct co O M %9 0) O (I) O O N Eft M 6 0 N 6 O O 63 O (() 6 Eft- 4 E9 O O O 69 A M 0 O O A O r Eft • O 0) 6ct 609 r O v9 0) ui 69 O 0) 69 Eft N. 63 69 N r V Eft O O N O O 609 O 69 0 w m M Eft c0 0 O 69 M N. 0) Eft O M 0 (60 6 tri 0) (0 63 6 o co 0 0) (0 0) CO 6 0) 69 o M co 0 0) 0) 6 ti O vrn N 63 N O M O (0 Eft- O Eft- O O O 0) N N.. (0 O co 69 0) co Eft (0 69 O LO LO C6 69 0 0 0 0 r d 0 o 0 0 to O O o O N O O 0 (p O 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 O 6 O 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O O O 0 O 6 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O O O 0 O M 0 0 0 r 0 0 0 O co 0 0 O O O O 0 O O M 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 6 0 0 0 O (() 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 O 6 O 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O O O O 0 O 0 r >- 0 Z a_ 0 0 0 w a 0 0 0 c 0 E m m 0 c .0 ti v ca S ac) S w a) E 0 S a z 4) U ca a) S co 0 U U U m co r = N T r 6 0 F- z W 1- CC W G z .J z a NNr000in 0/C/apReII-�.hNNhr Ea . IL'e•ne r ea eQ 0 03 DONOtI)ulc+.�1 CD c3u0IDOr ) •rrNCJNrrrC�ICVC\ TE9CfluifliG9G969(l3fiSW96f. t c) sh L� U) CO O O N w�-, • vv $2.568 0 I 1 �EH A O wvrJVt $7,208 I CO cCZZ2- N CO CO CO CO CO - CO a CO -a N -a CO zCDmOCOrO r r CO CY O cc; cc; tli''CctO) to. r-b9f+9Cfi r r n�a n/a CO CC CO CO C-a CO CO CO CCC CO CCI CO CMG C0 C,.tr��mr CO I�NCnNlAO Ea O CO ta 69 64 to O CA ta 4111.195 CO c22 CO CO CO C2CZ CO CO CO l0 C CO CO C2 CO -a 7 CO CD C6 CO '- 69. Ea �2f.'Lti $20.33 $6.83 r c{ O 69- r fa CO C CCI C CO C CO C CCI C CO CO Z C CO c CO -c N -c $3,295 $3,852 $4,265 $6,298 $8,346 $10,812 0 0 0 C \Iv 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 CC5isrNC9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000'9 OOO' y Y - - • 0 0 0 0 0 0 un J,VVV 10,000 20,000 inn O O O O O O ■ O r co y N ts E c ca (1) f''A it C CV CV 0 s- 7 N O c Cn N C Cn Ca cc Cl- 0 N a) C mesiaennai care Facilities 0) � rr N NSPECTION ONLY PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT CONTINUED w a. z 0 0 1- in z 0 z > z z (0 0) 0 0 69 0) a 0) 69 co V' CV 0) 69 A 69 6R O 69 1) a O 3 o co cd 69 A 69 O 69 Co 69 O 3 0 O 69 0 oi 69 C9 0 69 0) 69 0 03 69 N O 69 (r0. 3 C9 CV 69 N 69 0) 0 0 1. N 0 ti a w d 0 F- 0 CC z 0 0 J 0 0 0 d 0 0 CO O 69 (0 LD 69 0 6A 0 00) 069 E9 (0 N 0) 69 0 0) 69 0) CO 69 co 10 c\ 0) 0) 69 co (0 69 CD Cr) Cr) 69 69 0 N 1 69 O O co co co CD 0) 0) 69 0) 69 LA 69 co r-. (0 69 O O O 69 0) (r) N 69 O O O a N 69 CO O 69 M 0 Q) 69 O N 069 0) O 0) CO 69 O 0 0) co 69 00 69 v 69 (ND 0) 69 CO CO 69 0 0) 69 co 69 69 M 00 69 co O 69 co 0) 069 O 69 O O 69 CO 69 0) 0) c6 69 N 69 O 0) CD 69 O tri 69 O O 69 O M 69 0) (0 69 O O 69 09 E9 O 69 69 0) 0 0 w Q m 0 b 69 CO CO co 0) 69 N to 69 0 0) 69 O 0) 69. co o Lo 69 co 0 co co 69 O N 10 69 O N 0) v 69 N 0 m 69 O ON) r) 69 O O (0 0 69 00) O 69 O O 0 69 er O 69 0 Li) 69 CO 0 69 69 6n w O_ F-- Z 0 H 0 CO Z 0 0 cc u_ LL J 0 0 0 I d 0 0 N CO CO 69 co O 69 co O 0 0) O 69 O (O 0 69 co O 69 ER (D CO 69 69 O CO 6A 0 O O 69 0 O N 69 (o CO 0) 69 O (D 69 M O 00 E9 0) n Cr; 69 (O (D Cfl E9 O co 69 69 M 0 O 69 N 0) CD E9 0 Ff3 69 co O O 69 69 0) 0 0 w d co 69 O O O 0) (o CO 69 O 69 N O 69 N O CO 69 co 0) 69 co 0 10 69 O 69 O O 69 N CO r 69 O 0) 69 Co O 69 M O a 0) Q) O 69 0 O N 0) H9 0) O (o O 69 0) O O 69 0) 69 O O N r 69 N M O 69 0 M 0 O 69 O) O 69 0 O 69 (o co (Y) O N O 69 0 0 0 O o 0 0 N O O o 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 O O N 0 0 0 N O 0 0 o co 0 O N 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O O 0 0 O O O N 0 O 0 O 0 0 Lf) 0 0 O O 0 O 0 O O 0 0 0 0 O 0 O O O O 0 O 0 0 O L() 0 0 0 O O 0 0 O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O N 0 0 0 O 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 LC) N 0 0 Li) N O O 0 tri N O O 0 O 0 0 0 LA N 0 0 0 0 Z 0 U 0 W 0 Low Hazard Storage 0 z ro 0 L > 0 0 () 0 Z Open Parking Garage 0 0 m m C/) 0 th N 0) 0) PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT CONTINUED z 0 z 0 U W a N z Q•699i- '9'226$ '96�5 w a.zaC F - >U °o zzz�T UZ — F- fA Z U 0 T (� O N T T O O (0 0) N • tareigt cn U w m 00) a (r0 _0 cv 0 O O O CO c7 H9 0 (O 69 Lq a 00) 0) 64 (0 co 0) a w z 0 U CC CO Z 0 J U ((1) 0 0 4 0 d9 co (0 (A N (() 69 N 69 (OO 0) O (0 O (7 ((00 0) (R (00 N tri V) 0 U w m 0) a (0 co m b9 co U3 O O N co (0 (A 0) N 6N9 0 () 0) 0) O 0 co '99 4 O N (9 0 64 0 O (C) O 69 w 0 }_ 0 U 0= 01 Z U LL LL J 0 0 Q2 0 U) O rei N- 0 v N a (H 01 1 0) fR N N 0) _0 M H9 co O d9 0) .0) 69 ca 0) (R H 0 0 w m 0) co ((0 (fl (9 0 0 O 16; 0 0) • 0 64 0) 0 0) O co (0 N co O (0 '9 0, a0 0N) a 0) 4 n 0) 69 O 0 (O 0 0 O N 0 0 0 O O 0 O O 0 O 0 0 0 0 O O O O O N 0 0 O 0 0 0 ui 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O N O O O O (C) 0 O O O O 0 0 0 N 0 0 O O 0 0 0 N O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 N O m Z w m M. CL o 0E-0 ..u) 0 o e6 H 8 O S Z U (/) O v) m0 marsh crust O O R Excavation and Grad 0_ UO U 0 U O O `0 0 a 0 m a] 0 O .0 o` w >. 0 0 O _O (0 CrS O 0) m 0 0 (1) U3 7 0 v1 (0 U U 0 0 0 0 0 0 m L_ O (0 o` a >, U L U 0 0 0 (0 O v L 0 crt a) 0 0) 03 0 co >. U 0 U 0 0 0 O 0 N O N H9 0) -a ca a U L 0 U O 0 0 O (0 O L 0) m 0 (00 1- (A m 0 (0 U U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD 00)) 0) d3 0 0 (0 m O co o U .0 U O 101 to 1,000 cubic yards 1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards 10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards 100,001 cubic yards or more PLAN CHECK PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT CONTINUED co 0 (noo C0Trn3COg) c0nr o 0) 0) (O(0 (0 0 0�a •-L0 •ti % �4 r� �aNOO won 19,N. ((oo ag asI• INSPECTION rr N. T O r r�rrgrO OOO(AOOCOO(o COO N NcO d'NNO)dt0 In r (0 O r N. (/ (3. �? ( (f3 69 to 69 69 co N O co (o (0 N 0 O r- r ((00 co N O r ((0 N O r (0 N ((c 00 00 r In t} r l() r (n O (0(000)0) °) 03 oo) C 71' � TJ}� o r7}, ,OJT} O) H z O r O O 0 O O co co. O _ g CO O co O O (co o to to N 0 L m 0. L 0 0 L t L L. L L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m m 0 (a (0 « f 0 L 0 c0 0 (a CD m m m m m m mU m m m m CD 0 O 0 0. O O L 0 0 O 0_ O O 0 U 0 m m m L as m L m m m m L m m m m L U of m (0 m a) O 0 0) 0 CL 7 (0 O O 0) a) m 0) O 0 0) O a CO O (0 L NU m 0 0 0 r c (0 (0 CO m 0) m 7 (C L_ 3 0 • w a) F z c z 0 0 O c cc c _ m O O > .0 (a c00 --' g w co O H 0 c il �c o,� o 0 0 I m= > ro C E T O O.-. 0- L CO c (A O 0 cp Lt. a c m oCU c�a o �o �u 0)o � 0 L' c m c•c m o aci CO _ _ _ C O O U U N 'O i L. Y m O m C :C C m. (a (Sf Z .N cg cc_°c) o '5 co cmi co ?E �v - ppc1°c 0 m m� E gm: InqD ro 5'''c LL �,a ijij 3 c� o c ma ��' °�co mU C 11 �� acin. U m m Q ° o aogi o m� m U a� .20 �U E ca m m m 0)0 o o 0 a) D o c c o ±.Z -0 c _E c •0tE E m E o 2 m m ca a o c0- o oU >Z y`° €'cY 3rom�oo�i�'m�m m m NN �0) 'm ro oZQ a co ¢UU UU����u w (L it CD C7� a as a Cl. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS co 0 0 INSPECTION Pier /Pile Foundation ti 0•C)(1). Q))O) (- (a M O 4) T 4) N 69 10 0 r r r r JililIlIti ao1111 n m mo -o n on n CO(O M COO - O CO OOCO O r r COO 4j '� CVO d' d' r (n N r n T r T T •• n •• n n0 14)0 (0 rr>o On n000 N • 111 (O COO Ch 0 (O - O (O CO — • L• t V � • p• � p O O O - p • O � (U6 m � L M M ll� ll� � � • O � 7 m N 7 Nro N m D W fC Z 0 m •� r '- p W = � W O N Vai E " � N .Y CT � a O O p UC N 0 a Q � '� O CCO _ N U � Z 0 V C 7 C O ( o o c o- >, � Z m o m c c'ci WcLiQ, �cLic`mo�¢ m lb = CO ++ a) c� O � a) _ � 0 3 L z U W � w oWC4�aCO� Q Y�� � E c.E •E w Z d)d)g me cb cc • lG O CMO a0 CO W F. D 0 W z a J J (.) N co N (0 a a N. INSPECTION co O co C10 O r c0 N W 2 0 Z 0 A O A O O O A O O O 1-I Z N 0) N m .0 0) C. O ui o_ c c0 0) J y O 0 c m m m 0 z 0 O `0 a O E c 0 •0 v 0 � T FA 0) 89 1) 0) 4 69 4 i- (0 1g, OO T to fR 1. toR Ra CI W M Z Z V F- Z W Q Z Rc AOl pNp to lV CO T 0) 10 C� Tt r I _ PLUMBING / GAS PERMIT FEES " 1 • OO O.. 00 CO CO COO CV 0 0 Ci • Co d' T CO N. LO In CU T Co N: (n 0Oc07 O O N- On )n CD 6 I n Tr OD O L () d L O U 'O (0 T O 1 458.68 NT 00 r 229.341 0000 0(O0 O N co O 172.011 0)0)00 10 N ON O CO CD 00 0 C) 0 finish, etc will be charc mstawmeiocate eacn forced air or gravity -type furnace or burner (including attached ducts and vents) up to each each each each 5 each 5 each per 1/2 hour per 1/2 hour 1 N U Hourly (min 4 hrs.)I Hourly (min 4 hrs.) c only. Associated work inluding plumbing, mechanical, electrical , sheetrock, f and including 100,000 Btu/hr Repair /Alteration/Addition to each heating appliance, refrigeration unit cooling unit, absorption unit or each heating, coaling absorption, or evaporative cooling system, including installation of controls regulated by code 1 Install/Relocate each boiler or compressor, up to and including 3 HP, or each absorption system up to and `? L 30 C - CL Each air - handling unit, including attached ducts. (Note: This fee shall not apply to an air - handling unit which is a portion of a factory- assembled appliance, cooling unit, evaporative cooler, or absorption unit for which • for such • 0 O 0 wmmerciai - mstauation of each hood which is served by mechanical exhaust, including the ducts for such hood Eacn Appliance or piece of equipment regulated by this code but not classed in other appliance categories, a permit is regwrea elsewhere in the code.) Each ventilation system which is not a portion of any heating or air conditioning system authorized, oy a permit Residential - Installation of each hood which is served by mechanical exhaust, including the ducts ruppiementai Fian UhecK Fee (first 1/2 hour) Each additional 1/2 hour (or portion thereof) Supplemental Inspection Fee (first 1/2 hour) Each additional 1/2 hour. (or portion thereof) 1 tanu-aione mecnamcai Flan C:hecK (hourly rate) E j 1 or for which no other fee is listed in the code Ivtner iviecnanicai inspections (per Hour) 'ool/Spa �� 0•`°� 0 lb' E E I errnite Heport/Dry rot Repairs ioor Replacement Additional Replacement New Window Additional New Window o a ° ° co O ( ( L 1 (pelnpayos -uoN) lnn -iien v(oue6Jew; i _ U n _ 1 111 $A§§AA § �rakaakk § / G as JI o \ c c co .c 0o / �� aq U' 2 o cu a' =/ » k c o @ c ¢ t� 0 > W t» _ 2 J & $ 6 \ ' c 0� \ �k tg 3 tem_= S kkk4,0 >® e oo) - e £ . ��k� .0 %§ F ? �� kE� \2 2 ! $E ° ��E$ ® 2$ tE����— a = co £f#mEo/ E2 k£ / /±wa g {% : 0 0 0§ c § 0c.) t E )7kkgE2 A § £ƒ e m c = c c : �E((kkk $ ƒ 0'k mcEe%t= § CO 2 21 k�kkfY) \ t t8 �2J£e�o =a 2 §e � "Iu)a)0a —� —�$ 7RaEec = ±m E c s= �i° ®o ■m # ''° 22 § \d) §�� / �/ rci IJJ.E wco\\ \ k a. 0. E \ c E E k IPLANNING-AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT CONTINUED • ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEES wLIJ. V QQQ 97 o g • Temporary Power Service Temporary Service power pole or pedestal, including all pole or pedestal- mounted receptacle outlets and appurtenances I Temporary aistnbution system and temporary lighting and receptacle outlets for construction sites, decorative lighting _Chnstmas tree sales lots, etc. tneceptacie, switcn, fifignting or other outlets at which current is used or controlled, except services, s, each 5 feet or fraction thereof may be considered as one outlet) rixeu resiaenriai appiiances or receptacle outlets for same, including wall- mounted electric ovens; counter • mounted cooking tops; eiectnc ranges; self- contained room console or through -wall air conditioners; space heaters; food waste gnnders; •• ishwashers; washing machines; water heaters; clothes dryers; or Residential Appliances and self - contained factory-wired nonresidential appliances, including medical and • dental devices; food, beverage, and ice cream cabinets; illuminated show cases; drinking fountains; • Motors, generators, transformers, rectifiers, synchronous converters, capacitors, industrial heating, air conditioners and neat pumps, cooking or baking equipment, and other apparatus, as follows: es, circuit breakers, contactors, thermostats, relays, and other • L U . N vending machines; laundry machines; or other similar types of equipment.) ( 4LAMEDA POWER AND TI Y a) o C c N. L U Ti a m nd meters) First 10 (or portion thereof) Each additional 10 ( or portion thereof) fixtures, sockets, or other lamp - holding devices 0 • Y ' C 1 0 t Q a o 11 ;h) not exceeding one horse , i rower Apparatus 1 . — < i t a or zu amp - rirst i 0 circuits (each) - Over 1u circuits (each) 25 to 4U amp circuits (each) • 50 to 175 amp circuits (each) — icl . c. n tacn aaamonal 10 (or tract U c . co c 0 (1) I. . rvon- fiiesiaentiai Appuances airectly reiatea controi equipment. LL cc co O N 0 w z O 0 z W a 0 Z Z m ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEES co cc 3 7 [O O a) Y 0 t 0 0 0 0 (UO T as y .o 6 7 0. m 2 F- v a) U a) U ter Y a C m 0. a cL 0 '0 c (0 O 0 E ED. L 0 w a) m m 0 0 0 c O O a) .0 as 0 a 0 0 0) 0- O N 0) O z .0 C 7 ay r (0 0)) m 0) Q (0 E O E m N 0 0) c .0 rn a) C 0 c 0) m (0 (0 0) L_ c r U L U c c 0 v a U .0, L 0 v c c a0) a) a E a) O O N O O c c 0 `0 0 0 co a0) 0 a) m rn c C O 0) 0) a E aJ O 0 0 O U E 0) a N E °o N O C c0 0_0)) `0 (0 O O 8 U 0) 0 w 2 0 w D 0 co Q0 cr w > 0 0 (A cc 0 0 z 0 cc 0 cc w 0 z 14) 69 u- 0 w w LL J 0 f- 0 z w O z w 0 cr w z 1 0 w 0 cc Q_ cc 0 z 0 0 w z z 0 W w Z F CC O O w -J H Q Z CC d 0 U C 0 0 'O C (0 C 0 0 0) a 0 a0) c (0 m y (0 m m 0 c L U O a O' 0, (0 t)- fa. L U L 0 0 U C 0 0 c 0 7 (0 a 8 1)) w L O N 0 c 0) a) y 0) C fd to a (0 `) a) O 0) U a) 0 `) 0 E 0 a) C 0 0 :0 a 0) a) (0 C 0) 3 0 f0 0 C 0 0) 0 c a) E a o- 45 0 O (0 C 0) 0, T 3 O 7 .D a 3 a Other Electrical Inspections. (per hour) 1PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT CONTINUED I _ 2 o + 2 otf F f 2 olj 1- + 2 0 1- + 2 o I- + S 2 c 1- i £ lull 22 otl H + otf I- + �i nnnl O� N to off$ + O 0. OOMO� I; A 64 0s 00m co n os F U� f a - . QC V 15 O o o °d F- • OO EF- A dHH 00 T E!} T EA. o T 64 00 T VT T EA 00 ER EA So T 64 EFT N EFT o N 69 co C ZONING APPLICATIONS !A lations" of the Alameda Municipal Code SUBDIVISION APPLICATION: Administrative charge on outside preparation of Initial Study, Negative Declaration or EIR CC W Z �W V • Subdivsion Map > 25 lots (including Condo Conversion) Amendment to the General Plan Diagram or Text Amendment to text ot Chapter 30 "Development Regul uevelopment Amendment renodic Review of Development Agreement Extension ot variance which has not been vested O o .i m N 0 rl rn 1) �f uesign Review - c� IC; I Extension ot Design Review not yet vested Tentative/Pacel Map up to 4 lots Subdivision Map 5 -25 lots Its 1 1 (cone cnange 1 Master Plan Master Plan Amendment welopment E E 0 m > I D C if ant Agreement Development Agreement variance Exception (Administrative) 1 : 0 > use rearm ; I 3 ;I C > uesign Review - Mayor 'arcei map C C 2 � 1 'Appeal to rianning board U c ° U m _' O m a cc c I i c to > �o rn .2 rojj1- (A FFM EA + Nodsto b9 + fH I- + +T&M 5od.o - I-- f• + I- 0 ° 0 000 cq 0 C Demolition Certnccate of Approval by HAB (Principal and accessory structure; removal of protected trees) Performance agreement to allow occupancy before all requirements are completed C 0 7 N Demolition Certrfrcate of Approval by staff (accessory structur Historical Sign Designation Ch H' dy List Classification C C O O 0 !wrung �.ompuance aetermmation Deed Restncuon Certificate of Complarnce a..y� m istoncal Building Stu Alteration to City Monuments 3 d S PUBLIC WORKS Fees noted in red or highlighted in red boxes are subject to Council Review. Maps & Prints: 500 scale - Alameda (color - 36" x 84 ") $22 500 scale - Alameda black and white $11 1000 scale - Alameda (color - 18" x 44 ") $15 1000 scale - Alameda (black and white) $11 500 scale - BFI 22x30 $11 Aerials $11 plus $10 mailing Truck route, bike route $2 Traffic volume data sheets, radar speed data sheets $5 Assessor's parcel maps (whole page available at Alameda County Assessor's Office) $1.00 per portion Sanitary Sewer Plan (18 x 22) $16 Storm Drain Plans (18 x 22) $16 Other Prints (22 x 30) $22 Plans and Specifications: Standard Plans $30 Bike Plans $30 Standard Subdivision Improvement Specs $30 General Services: Research of Records (no charge for first 15 minutes) Transportation Operational Requests - nonsafety related Transportation Technical Team/Transportation Committee— Request for or appeal of actions* *Fee is refundable if enacted /approved Recycling/Trash Exception Application* $86 per hour Time and Materials $60 * The Public Works Director shall set a deposit schedule. Time & Materials - Engineering time charged per cost allocation plan, approximately $99.82 /hour Master Fees - Revised 7/06 $86 DEPOSIT 8/16/2006 16 PUBLIC WORKS CONTINUED DEPOSIT I-- -• —• -- PermltC. —t.. Appllcat/ons: ._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._. ._.._.._---- •— .._.._.._.._.._ "1 ;Building Permit - Combination Building Permit (Non - Development) Plan Check - Residential Remodel /Addition single family $260 + T &M ** i Plan Check - Residential Remodel /Addition multi- family $400 + T &M ** I I Plan Check - Commercial - multi building $400 + T &M ; Plan Check - Commercial - one building $260 + T &M Supplemental Plan Check T &M Development Applications Planned Development T &M Planned Development Amendment T &M Final Development Plan T &M Parking in -lieu Fee Determination T &M :Review of Master Plans /Development Plans: !(Engineering services for review of developer applications will be at time and materials) 1 j Master Plan T &M ** Master Plan Amendment T &M ** I 1 Development Plan (Also see Property Development category) T &M ** I • Development Plan Amendments T &M ** Development Agreement/Amendment (Also see Property Development Category) T &M ** 1 j General Plan Amendment T &M ** Environmental Review T &M ** Traffic Review T &M I . 'Concrete Permits , ! Sidewalk repair /replace install 0 to 20 linear feet $0 I Sidewalk repair /replace install 21 to 50 linear feet $25 Sidewalk repair /replace install 51 to 200 linear feet $75 I Sidewalk repair /replace install > 200 linear feet $300 I Curb ut/Driveway - New (.each! -- $200 . Sidewalk Repair - concrete permit •Righ—.._..—••-----•-------••--•--•----•--•--•—•--••—•--------•------ •— •----- •--- •— •----- •• - -• —. Right -of -Way Permits: Encroachment Permits - Construction >1 week $520 j Encroachment Permits - Temporary <1 week $65 ** j Encroachment Permits - Permanent $390 ** ; ! Excavation Permit - Includes inspection $290 Per Block I I Excavation Permit - Point Repair $54 • Each signalized intersection - additional charge $195 I 100% recovery to be phased in over three years: j FY 07/08 390 /block 290 /sig. Intersection • FY 08/09 520 /block 390 /sig. Intersection 1 I ** The Public Works Director shall set a deposit schedule T &M = Time & Materials - Engineering time charged per Cost Allocation Plan, approximately $99.82 /hour Master Fees - Revised 7/06 8/16/2006 17 PUBLIC WORKS CONTINUED Property Development - Applications may be reviewed by City staff or by consultant hired by the City at cost plus 10% Deposit is $10,000 unless otherwise specified Lot Line Adjustment Parcel Map (1 to 4 lots) Tentative /Final Map review Assessment District Formation On /Off site Public Improvement plan review - Commercial > 5 acres j On /Off site Public Improvement plan review - Commercial < 5 acres On /Off site Public Improvement Inspection - Commercial > 5 acres On /Off site Public Improvement Inspection - Commercial < 5 acres On /Off site Public Improvement Plan Review - Residential >25 Lots On/Off site Public Improvement Plan Review - Residential 5 to 25 Lots On/Off site Public Improvement Plan Review - Residential < 5 Lots On /Off site Public Improvement Inspection - Residential >26 Lots On/Off site Improvement Inspection - Residential 1 to 25 Lots Grading Permit Inspection Grading Permit Inspection - Grading Permit Inspection - Grading Permit Inspection - Grading Permit Inspection - Grading Permit Inspection - - Commercial < 1 Acre Commercial 1 to 10 Acres Commercial > 10 Acres Residential 1-4 Lots Residential 5 to 25 Lots Residential 26 to 50 Lots j Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) Applies to all development sites SWPPP <1 acre SWPPP 1 -5 acres SWPPP 5 - 20 Acres SWPPP > 25 Acres -- .-- - - - - -- $3,800 $1,500 $2,500 T &M (or Consultant Costs + 10 %) T &M (or Consultant Costs + 10 %) Costs + 10 %) $6,900 $1,725 $1,100 T &M T &M $3,675 T &M $700 $325 $575 T &M $450 $575 $700 $1,900 $2,550 $3,200 Special Event Permits Not all special events will require review by Public Works. Review determination will be made at time of application. Fees will be waived for nonprofit or public benefit events. DEPOSIT $4,000 $2,500 Banner Permit - per banner /per location for install removal of banner •• —�• $200 Block Party Permit - Requiring Engineering Review Boat Show Permit - requiring Engineering Review Film Permit Non - profit/Still Photography - street closure All others - street closure All Bridge closures Rental of City Property (to be determined) Race, Walk -a -thon, parade permit Relocation Permit (housing moving) Street Fair Permit Tent Permit Under 4,500 sq. ft. Over 4,500 sq. ft. $20 T &M T &M T &M T &M T &M T &M T &M T &M T &M T &M Permits -Solid Waste & Recycling - Hauler Fees (C &D Fees)-— " "— "— ' " "'— ' " —" —"— —•- Basic fee $600 Reporting fees ($100 per hour) $100 minimum due at filing Program Fee $8.67 per ton hauled Impact Mitigation Fee $2.86 per ton hauled Performance Security Bond $95 T &M - Time and Materials (Engineering time charges per Cost Allocation Plan, approximately $99.82/hr. Master Fees - Revised 7/06 8/16/2006 18 City of ALAMEDA USER FEE STUDY PROPOSED FEE REVISIONS Fee or Service Name / Description Current Fee Proposed Fee A -3 Occupant Load of 50 to 299 without a Stage $ 125 $ 264 A -2.1, Occupant Load of 300 or more without a Stage $ - $ 264 A -2 Occupant Load of less than 1000 with a Stage $ 125 $ 264 A -1 Occupant Load of 1000 or more with a Stage $ 125 $ 264 Group B Occupancies: 1 -2,500 SF $ 63 $ 192 Group B Occupancies: 2,501 -5,000 SF $ 63 $ 264 Group B Occupancies: each additional 2,500 SF $ 63 $ 72 Group E -1 Occupancies (Elem Schools) $ 125 $ 480 Group E -1 Occupancies (Jr High or Middle Schools) $ 125 $ 696 Group E -1 Occupancies (High Schools) $ 125 $ 1,417 Group E -2 Occupancies $ 125 $ 156 Group E -3 Occupancies (Non residential day care) or any residential bldg use for day care in excess 12 children) $ Group E -1 Occupancies (Public Elem Schools) Group E -1 Occupancies (Public Jr High or Middle Schools) Group E -1 Occupancies (Public High Schools) Group E -2 Occupancies (Public) Group H -1, H -2, H -3 Occupancies (1 -2,500 SF) Group H -1, H -2, H -3 Occupancies (each additional 2,500 SF) 125 $ 156 125 120 $ 125 174 125 354 125 Group 11.1 Occupancies (1 -2,500 SF) 63 $ , 39 $ 91 $ 63 $ 125 Group 11.1 Occupancies (each addition! 2,500 SF) 125 $ 36 $ 156 $ 72 Group 11.2 Occupancies Group 12 Occupancies Group 13 Occupancies Group M Occupancies $ 125 $ 125 $ 125 Group R -1 3 -10 Units $ 63 $ 156 $ 228 $ 372 $ 156 Group R -1 11 -20 units Group R -1 21 -30 units Group R -1 31-60 units Group R -1. 61 -90 units Group R -1 >90 units $ 125 $ 228 $ 63 $ 192 $ 250 $ 250 $ 375 $ 336 $ 408 $ 552 Group S -1 Occupancies Group S -2 Occupancies Group S -3 Occupancies Group S-4 Occupancies $ 63 $ 264 $ 500 $ 696 $ 63 $ 63 $ 264 $ 192 Group S -5 Occupancies (hanger) Marinas $ 63 $ 264 $ 63 PLAN CHECKING / PERMITS Prebuild Conferences Fire Alarm $ 264 $ 408 $ 125 Fire Sprinkler - New < 20 heads $ 125 $144/hr $ 147 Fire Sprinkler - New 20 -200 heads $ 188 $ 216 Fire Sprinkler - New 20 -200 heads (each head) Fire Sprinkler - New >200 heads Fire Sprinkler - New >200 heads (each head) Fire Sprinkler - TI < 20 heads Fire'Sprinkler - TI 20 -200 heads 250 $ 288 $ 375 $ 432 $ 1 $ 125 Fire Sprinkler - TI 20 -200 heads (each head) Fire Sprinkler - TI >200 heads Fire Underground Fite Hydrants 188 $ 250 $ 250 Each Additional Fire Hydrant Standpipes $ 25 $ 144 $ 216 $ 1 $ 288 $ 288 $ 128 $ 25 $ 25 $ 250 $ 288 8/16/2006 3 City of ALAMEDA USER FEE STUDY PROPOSED FEE REVISIONS IF Fee or Service Name / Description Current Fee Proposed Fee Standpipes Each Additional Outlet $ 10 $ 12 Suppression System - Hood $ 188 $ 216 Suppression System - Agents $ 250 $ 288 TANKS Install AGST <= 2K gals $ 125 $ 144 TANKS Install AGST > 2K gals $ 250 $ 288 TANKS Install UGST $ 375 $ 432 TANKS Install Piping only $ . 125 $ 144 TANKS Remove Residential $ 188 $ 216 TANKS Remove Commercial $ 375 $ 432 TENT PERMITS 201 to 400 square feet (in total) $ 250 $ 48 401 to 1500 square feet (in total) $ 375 $ 72 1501 to 15,000 square feet (in total) $ - $ 144 15,001 to 30,000 square feet (in total) $ - $ 288 Over 30,000 square feet (in total) $ - $ . 432 SPECIAL PERMITS Bum & Weld (routine welding operation) $ 125 $ 144 Film Permit $ 63 $ 279 Fireworks - Display $ 125 $ 415 Fireworks - Theatrical $ 125 $ 415 Fireworks - Special Effects $ 125 $ 415 Fumigation and storage $ 125 $ 144 Camivals, Fairs & Special Events $ - $ 415 STANDBY FIRE PERSONNEL AND /OR EQUIPMENT (AT HOURLY RATE) Equipment without staff $ 72 $80 /hr Standard Fire Engine without staff $ 150 $165/hr Staff Vehicle without staff $ 35 $39 /hr Quint/Ladder Truck without staff $ 200 $221/hr Technical Rescue without staff $ - $110 /hr Fire Boat without staff $ - $110/hr Ambulance $ - $83 /hr Support Materials (variable) At cost per type and amount required At cost per type and amount required Personnel Per current contract salary including benefits Per current contract salary including benefits MISC FEES Copies of Fire Reports $ 1 $ 1 NEW FEES FALSE FIRE ALARM FEES 2nd false alarm 3rd false alarm 4th ea additional Excessive or Malicious residential False Alarms Causing Response of Fire Apparatus (per calaendar quarter) $ 63 $ 125 $250 $375 Excessive or Malicious Commercial False Alarms Causing Response of Fire Apparatus (per calaendar quarter) $ . 125 $ 250 $375 $375 Response due to "Failure to Notify' the Flre Department when working on or testing Sprinkler or Fire Alarm System $ 125 $ 125 $125 $125 8/16/2006 4 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2006, by the following vote to wit: AYES NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said City this day of , 2006. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda City of Alameda Memorandum Date: September 5, 2006 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: Debra Kurita City Manager Re: Introduction of an Amendment to the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending subsection 13- 2.2(e), (Modifications, Amendments and Deletions to the California Building Code) of Section 13 -2 (Alameda Building Code) of Chapter 13 (Building and Housing) to Incorporate Specific Requirements for the Installation of Fire Extinguishing Systems BACKGROUND Over the course of the past several months, the Fire Department staff has researched the impact of a number of potential amendments to the Municipal Code sections related to the installation requirements for fire sprinklers. As a result, staff recommends implementing several changes to the Code. DISCUSSION The existing fire sprinkler ordinance in the City of Alameda requires fire sprinklers in newly constructed buildings that are: (a) two stories or taller, (b) buildings that are 5,000 square feet or larger, and (c) remodeled buildings when the remodel costs exceed 50% of the assessed valuation of the structure. The existing ordinance does not require the installation of fire sprinklers for new residential single - family or residential double - occupancy structures or new commercial construction with fewer than 5,000 square feet. The recommended Municipal Code changes would require the installation of fire sprinklers in all newly constructed commercial and residential buildings and in existing commercial and residential apartment structures that are being remodeled if the construction costs exceed 25% of the current value of the building. However, these proposed changes to the Code would include the following exceptions to the fire sprinkler installation requirements: (1) Remodeled single - family homes. (2) Remodeled duplex apartments. (3) Detached Group U Occupancies (private garages) less than 300 square feet. (4) When the floor area of a temporary building (as defined in the Uniform Building Code) is less than 1,000 square feet and the exit travel distance from any point is less than 50 feet. Agenda Item #5 -C 9 -5 -06 Honorable Mayor and September 5, 2006 Councilmembers Page 2 of 3 (5) When the floor area of a Group B (businesses), Group F (assembly and fabrication shops), and Group S (storage facilities) occupancies are fewer than 300 square feet. The research indicates that there will be additional costs to property owners or property developers if the proposed changes are adopted. Staff conducted a survey of four local fire sprinkler installation contractors to determine the average cost of fire sprinkler installations. In new residential construction the costs range from $2.35 to $2.95 per square foot. In new commercial construction, the costs range from $1.60 to $5.50 per square foot, and for retrofitting $1.60 to $6.00 per square foot. Cost estimates do not include costs for underground work, which can be considerable depending on the project. A key element of this proposal to amend the fire sprinkler installation requirements will be a public education and outreach effort designed to explain the costs and benefits of these proposed changes. The Fire Department met with developers, business associations and the residential community to inform them of these anticipated changes, to respond to questions, and to solicit feedback. The feedback was positive from all the stakeholders. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT The additional construction cost associated with the installation of fire sprinkler systems will be borne by the developer or property owner. There will be no impact to the general fund. MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE This Municipal Code change affects Chapter 13 Building and Housing, Section 13 -2 Alameda Building Code, Subsection 13 -2 -2 Modifications, Amendments and Deletions to the California Building Code. Each section has been thoroughly analyzed and found to be compatible with the proposed amendment to the Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This ordinance is exempt under State CEQA Guideline Section 15061(b)(3), which is the "general rule" that CEQA does not apply where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the proposed Amendment to the Alameda Municipal Code by amending subsection 13- 2.2(e), (Modifications, Amendments and Deletions to the California Building Code) of Section 13 -2 (Alameda Building Code) of Chapter 13 (Building and Housing) to incorporate specific requirements for the installation of fire extinguishing systems. Honorable Mayor and September 5, 2006 Councilmembers Page 3 of 3 Respectfully submitted, ames Christiansen Fire Chief By: Michael Fisher Fire Marshal CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO. New Series AMENDING THE ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING SUBSECTION 13- 2.2(e) (MODIFICATIONS, AMENDMENTS AND DELETIONS TO THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING. CODE) OF SECTION 13 -2 (ALAMEDA BUILDING CODE) OF CHAPTER XIII (BUILDING AND HOUSING), TO INCORPORATE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF FIRE EXTINGUISHING SYSTEMS WHEREAS, given that Alameda is an island that could render it isolated in the event of a disaster, the installation of fire sprinklers in buildings is one of the City's long term fire protection strategies to reduce the Toss of life and property due to unwanted fires; and WHEREAS, after reviewing several scientific studies, the City has determined that the installation of fire sprinklers in buildings often reduces the loss of life and property when fires do occur. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that: Section 1. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending Subsection 13- 2.2(e) (Modifications, Amendments and Deletions to the California Building Code): 13- 2.2(e). Section 904.1.1 of the California Building Code, 2001 Edition, is amended to read as follows: Section 904.1.1 General. Fire extinguishing systems required in this Code shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of this Chapter. Fire hose threads used in connection with fire - extinguishing systems shall be National Standard hose threads or as approved by the Fire Department. In buildings used for high -pile combustible storage, fire protection shall be in accordance with Fire Department findings. The location of all Fire Department hose connections and the main control valve (i.e. Post Indicator Valve) shall be approved by the Fire Chief. All automatic sprinkler systems, other than those installed in detached single and two- family dwellings defined as Group R Division 3 occupancies and Group U occupancies in this Code, shall be provided with supervision of all control valves and flow alarm signal devices. Valve supervision and flow alarm signals shall be transmitted to an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed Central Station. Introduction of Ordinance #5 -C 9 -5 -06 Installation, inspection, and maintenance of the fire alarm system required by this Section shall be in conformance with Underwriters Laboratory and the National Fire Protection Association Standards established in the National Fire Alarm Code, NFPA -72, 1996 Edition, including amendments thereto, as may be made from time to time. Section 904.1.2. Standards. Fire - extinguishing systems shall comply with California Building Code Standards Number 901, 902 and applicable National Fire Code Standards for type of system being installed. The minimum hazard classification shall be designed to meet "Ordinary Hazard, Group 2." EXCEPTIONS: (1) Automatic sprinkler systems may be connected to the domestic water supply main when approved by the Fire Chief, provided the domestic water supply is of adequate pressure, capacity, and sizing for the combined domestic and sprinkler requirements. In such cases, the sprinkler system connection shall be made between the public water main or meter and the building shutoff valve. There shall not be any intervening valves or connections. The Fire Department connection may be omitted when approved by the Fire Chief. Section 904.2 Automatic Fire-extinguishing Systems. Section 904.2.1 Where required. An automatic fire - extinguishing system shall be installed in the occupancies and locations as set forth in this section. Section 904.2.2 Occupancies requiring automatic sprinkler systems; exceptions. An approved automatic sprinkler system shall be installed in all newly constructed occupancies regardless of occupancy group type or building's moved into or relocated within the City and shall comply with NFPA Standard 13 and 13 -R, and the following: Bathrooms, regardless of size, and spaces under stairs used for the storage of combustible materials.(2) When an existing building is added to, repaired or remodeled, if the cost of addition, repair or remodeling, is over 25% of the current value of the building. The value shall be based on the International Code Council Building Valuation Data. Area separation walls do not exempt this requirement for an automatic sprinkler system. EXCEPTIONS: Detached Group U Occupancies (utility) Tess than 300 square feet. An automatic sprinkler system need not be provided when the floor area of a temporary building as defined in the California Building Code is less than 1,000 square feet and the exit travel distance from any point is less than 50 feet. An automatic sprinkler system need not be provided when the floor area of a Group B (Business), Group F ( Factory), and Group S (Storage) Occupancy is Tess than 300 square feet, as determined by the Fire Chief. Existing Group R, Division 3 occupancies are excluded from the automatic sprinkler requirements of section 904.2.2 (2). An automatic fire - extinguishing system in Group R, Division 3 occupancies, including but not limited to one and two- family dwellings and mobile homes, shall comply with NFPA Standard 13 -D and the following: All fire extinguishing systems installed in accordance with NFPA Standard 13 -D shall be tested for leakage by undergoing a hydrostatic test made at 200 psi for a two -hour duration or at 50 psi above static pressure in access of 150 psi for two -hour duration. (2) Each water system supplying both domestic and fire protection systems shall have a single indication -type control valve, arranged to shut -off both the domestic and sprinkler systems and a separate shut -off valve for the domestic system only. The location of the control valve shall be approved by the Fire Chief. A separate shut- off valve is not required for the domestic water supply in multi- purpose piping systems. (3) Local water flow alarms on residential type sprinkler systems (Standard 13 -D) shall be powered from the kitchen refrigerator circuit. Attached garages, bathrooms, attic spaces regardless of size, and spaces under stairs used for the storage of combustible materials. In the event that another section of the Alameda Building Code is more restrictive, then that section will apply. . Section 2. Severability Clause. It is the declared intent of the City Council of Alameda that if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or provision of this ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not be so construed as to render invalid or unconstitutional the remaining provisions of this ordinance. Section 3. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of its final passage. Presiding Officer of the Council Attest: Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was duly and regularly adopted and passed by Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2006, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this day of , 2006. Lara Weisiger, City .Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum Date: September 5, 2006 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: Debra Kurita City Manager Re: Public Hearing to consider ZA06 -0001, Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment City -wide and Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by revising Subsection 30- 4.9A.g.8, Off - Street Parking and Loading Space of the C -C Community Commercial Zone of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations), to Add a Process for Parking Exceptions BACKGROUND The City has initiated a Parking Demand and Management Study to assess existing and future parking demands in the core commercial areas of the Park and Webster Street districts. The purpose of the study is to identify parking opportunities and constraints, evaluate parking requirements and financial considerations, and identify implementation strategies to maximize the use of parking in the core commercial areas. The study will include a review and recommendations regarding the City's parking -in -lieu fees, on street parking practices and parking requirements. Due to its comprehensive nature and the potential recommendations to be evaluated, completion of this study and adoption of the implementation actions that may result is not anticipated before the end of fiscal year 2006/2007. However, there is a need to address parking issues related to new construction and for new businesses on Park and Webster Streets at this time. Through a joint workshop of the Planning Board and Economic Development Commission, staff was directed to consider the creation of a parking exception process for new and /or expanding businesses in these corridors. More recent development codes for urban areas have provisions for reducing parking requirements through parking exceptions when it can be shown that the proposed use demands less parking than that required by code. Staff reviewed the ordinances of Albany, San Leandro, South San Francisco and San Carlos to create the ordinance that was considered by the Planning Board. At the July 10, 2006 meeting, the Planning Board voted to recommend approval of a parking exception process for the C -C, (Community Commercial) zoning district. Agenda Item #5 -D 9 -5 -06 Honorable Mayor and Page 2 Councilmembers September 5, 2006 DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS The proposed Zoning Text Amendment would establish a process for reviewing exceptions to the parking requirements for new uses or construction on Park and Webster Streets within the C -C (Community Commercial) Zoning District. The proposed process would require Planning Board approval based on a parking study specific to the property and use. When requesting a modification to the required parking, the applicant would be required to submit a parking study prepared by a licensed Traffic Engineer. The Public Works Director would approve the scope and extent of the study, including the data to be collected. The parking study would include but not be limited to an on- street and off - street parking survey specific to the project site and the proposed use to determine the peak on- street and off - street parking demand. It would also address the impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods. Findings in support of the parking exception would depend on a parking study that satisfactorily demonstrates that the parking demand would be less than the general parking standards for that use over the lifetime of the use. The parking exception would be subject to Planning Board approval. The AMC presently does not provide for a parking exception process that would allow applicants to propose minor changes to their parking requirement based on the parking demand of their unique business or circumstances. A parking exception process for the C- C (Community Commercial) Zoning District would allow applicants the opportunity to propose such changes where they are deemed appropriate. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines, which exempts Minor Alterations to Land Use Limitations. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT No additional funding would be required to implement the amended ordinance. MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE This ordinance will amend Section 30- 4.9A.g.8 the Alameda Municipal Code to create a new provision and will have no effect on any existing provisions. RECOMMENDATION Introduce an ordinance revising Section 30- 4.9A.g.8 of the Alameda Municipal Code to add a process for parking exceptions to the C -C Community Commercial Zone. Honorable Mayor and Page 3 Councilmembers September 5, 2006 By: Respectfully submitted, Cathy Woodbury Planning and Building Director CynthNa Eliason Supervising Planner Attachments 1. July 10, 2006 Planning Board Staff Report and attachments 2. Draft Minutes of the July 10, 2006 meeting CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT ITEM NO.: GENERAL PLAN: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: STAFF PLANNER: RECOMMENDATION: ACRONYMS: ATTACHMENTS: STAFF REPORT 9 -A ZA06 -0002 Zoning Text Amendment — Citywide. Zoning Text Amendment to amend Subsection 30- 4.9A.g.8. Off- street Parking and Loading Space of the C -C Community Commercial Zone of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to add a process for parking exceptions. Community Commercial The project is Categorically Exempt from review under state CEQA Guidelines, 15305 Cynthia Eliason, Supervising Planner Recommend approval AMC — Alameda Municipal Code 1. Draft Resolution I. PROPOSAL SUMMARY The proposed Zoning Text Amendment would establish a process for reviewing exceptions to the parking requirements for new uses or construction on Park and Webster Streets within the C- C (Community Commercial) Zoning District. The proposed process would require Planning Board approval based on a parking study specific to the property and use, and on findings. II. BACKGROUND The City is initiating a Parking Demand and Management Study to assess existing and future parking demands in the core commercial areas of the Park and Webster Street districts. The purpose of the study is to identify parking opportunities and constraints, evaluate parking requirements and financial considerations, and identify implementation strategies to maximize the use of parking in the core commercial areas. The study will include a review and recommendations regarding the City's parking -in -lieu fees, on street parking practices and parking requirements. Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of July 10, 2006 Attachment #1 Agenda Item #5 -D 9 -5 -06 1 Due to its comprehensive nature and the potential recommendations to be evaluated, completion of this study and adoption of the implementation actions that may result is not anticipated before the end of fiscal year 2006/2007. However, there is a need to address parking issues related to new construction and for new businesses on Park and Webster Streets at this time. More recent development codes for urban areas have provisions for reducing parking requirements through parking exceptions when it can be shown that the proposed use demands less parking than that required by code. The City's Development Regulations presently do not provide for a parking exception process that would allow applicants to propose minor changes to their parking requirement based on the parking demand of their unique business or circumstances. A parking exception process for the C -C (Community Commercial) Zoning District would allow applicants the opportunity to propose such changes where they are deemed appropriate. III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is Categorically Exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act Section 15305, Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations. The Zoning Text Amendment would provide a process for the approval of a reduction in the parking required for a proposed use at a specific location. IV. STAFF ANALYSIS Discussion: The proposed Zoning Text Amendment would establish a process for reviewing exceptions to the parking requirements the C -C (Community Commercial) Zoning District, which includes both Park and Webster Streets. A parking exception would be considered for businesses expansion or new construction where it can be demonstrated that the parking demand for the proposed use would be less than the required parking. This is different from payment in lieu fees where it has been established that the business demands all the parking required by code, but cannot physically provide it, and therefore must pay an alternative amount of monies towards transit. With approval of a parking exception, no additional fees would be required. However, it is possible for a project proponent to request both a parking exception and payment of parking in -lieu fees in order to comply with the parking requirement. When requesting a modification to the required parking, the applicant would be required to submit a parking study prepared by a licensed Traffic Engineer. The Public Works Director would approve the scope and extent of the study, including the data to be collected. The parking study would include but not be limited to an on- street and off - street parking survey specific to the project site and the proposed use to determine the peak on- street and off - street parking demand. It would also address the impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods. Findings in support of the parking exception would depend on a parking study that satisfactorily demonstrates that the parking demand would be less than the general parking standards for that Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of July 10, 2006 2 use over the lifetime of the use. The parking exception would be subject to Planning Board approval. Findings: 1. The project will have no effect on the integrity of the General Plan. The proposed Zoning Text Amendment implements the General Theme of the General Plan to de- emphasize the automobile. 2. The proposed amendment will have a positive effect on the general welfare of the community. The proposed Zoning Text Amendment will have a positive effect on the general welfare of the community, in that it will further implementation of the Downtown Vision Plan, the Webster Street Specific Plan and the Retail Strategy Report. 3. The proposal is equitable. The proposed Zoning Text Amendment is equitable in that it will apply to the entire C -C (Community Commercial) Zoning District, which encompasses both core commercial areas along Park and Webster Streets. V. RECOMMENDATION Recommend to the City Council that they: 1. Find the project Categorically Exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act, and 2. Approve the Zoning Text Amendment to add a process for parking exceptions in the C -C (Community Commercial) Zoning District, based on the findings contained in the draft Resolution. G:\ PLANNING\ PB\Reports\2006 \06- 26- 06\Parking Exception.doc Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of July 10, 2006 3 CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION NO. DRAFT A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT FOR THE CREATION OF A PARKING EXCEPTION PROCESS WHEREAS, on May 22, 2006, the Planning Board directed staff to consider a Zoning Text Amendment for creation of a parking exception process and WHEREAS, the Board has held a public hearing on this application on July 10, 2006, and has examined pertinent maps, and documents; and WHEREAS, the Board has made the following findings relative to this proposed Zoning Text Amendment: 1. The proposed Zoning Text Amendment implements one of the General Themes of the General Plan by de- emphasizing the automobile; and 2. The proposed Zoning Text Amendment will have a positive effect on the general welfare of the community as it will assist in the implementation of the Downtown Vision Plan, the Webster Street Specific Plan and the Retail Strategy Report; and 3. The project is equitable in that it will apply to the entire C -C (Community Commercial) Zoning District, which encompasses both core commercial areas along Park and Webster Streets. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Planning Board of the City of Alameda hereby determines that the proposal is Categorically Exempt under California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Section 15305 — Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations. THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Board of the City of Alameda hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment ZA06 -0002 described in Exhibit A. Attachment 1 DRAFT CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO. New Series AMENDING THE ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING SUBSECTION 30- 4.9A.g.8 OFF - STREET PARKING AND LOADING SPACE OF THE C -C COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ZONE OF CHAPTER XXX (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS), TO ADD A PROCESS FOR PARKING EXCEPTIONS WHEREAS, the proposed Zoning Text Amendment implements one of the General Themes of the General Plan by de- emphasizing the automobile; and WHEREAS, the proposed Zoning Text Amendment will have a positive effect on the general welfare of the community as it will assist in the implementation of the Downtown Vision Plan, the Webster Street Specific Plan and the Retail Strategy Report; and WHEREAS, the project is equitable because it will apply to the entire C -C (Community Commercial) Zoning District, which encompasses both core commercial areas along Park and Webster Streets. BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that: Section 1. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending Subsection 30- 4.9A.g.8. Off - Street Parking And Loading Space of the C -C Community Commercial Zone as follows: 30 -4.9 (g)(8) Off- Street Parking And Loading Space: As regulated by Section 30 -7 unless a parking exception is granted. (a) A parking exception may be approved reducing the number of parking spaces to less than the number specified in the parking schedule in Section 30 -7.6 provided the following findings are made by the Planning Board: (i) The parking demand will be less than the requirements in Section 30- 7.6, and (ii) The probable long -term occupancy of the building or structure based on its design will not generate additional parking demand. (b) A parking exception granted by the Planning Board shall be limited to the specific structure and use. Any future alterations to the building or changes in the use shall require a new parking exception or shall be required to meet the parking supply requirements of the parking schedule in Section 30 -7.6. Attachment 2 DRAFT Section 2. Severability Clause. It is the declared intent of the City Council of Alameda that if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or provision of this ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not be so construed as to render invalid or unconstitutional the remaining provisions of this ordinance. Section 3. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of its final passage. * * * PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board 9. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 9 -A. ZA06 -000X Zoning Text Amendment — Citywide (CE). Zoning Text Amendment to amend Subsection 30-4.9Ag.8. Off-street Parking and Loading Space of the C -C Community Commercial Zone of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to add a process for parking exceptions. Ms. Eliason summarized the staff report, and recommended adoption of this amendment. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Michael Krueger, 2145 Santa Clara Avenue, Apt. E, spoke in support of this item. He believed that many of the City's parking requirements were developed in suburban areas with no public transit, developed to handle a worst -case scenario. He believed that other cities copied those standards, and suggested that they be changed to reflect the use and location of a retail establishment. He noted that Portland, Oregon, had exceptions for sites well - served by public transit (within 500 feet of the site). He noted that both Park and Webster Streets met those criteria. He added that the parking structure would also merit reexamination of the off - street parking requirements. Mr. David Kirwin, 1416 Seminary Avenue, noted that one bus pullout has been lost on Park Street, leading to auto and delivery truck congestion. He noted that uses may change and that auto - dependence related to that business may change. Mr. Jon Spangler, 1037 San Antonio Avenue, agreed with Mr. Krueger's comments. He noted that he shopped on Park Street by bike frequently. He strongly supported using alternative methods of transportation, and was very concerned about the environmental effects of driving cars. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Vice President Cook believed the parking requirements should be applied intelligently, taking the retail use into account. In response to an inquiry by Member McNamara on whether the parking exemptions would be defined by the applicant or the traffic study, Ms. Eliason replied that detailed guidelines from Public Works and Development Services would be sought by staff. She noted that a mixed -use office (office /residential), assisted care and hotel facilities would be likely candidates for this policy. Member Lynch noted that parking in lieu fees are a way for communities to generate fees to develop a nexus for that project. He added that government is also reticent to relinquish a revenue source, and noted that a balance between a revenue stream and such a parking policy must be struck. He was reluctant to require each applicant to produce a costly parking demand study, especially in a C -C district that was already described in a City map. Attachment #2 Planning Board Minutes Agenda Item #5 -D Page 7 July 10, 2006 9 -5 -06 PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern about the timing of this issue, and noted that she had attended the EDC meeting where the parking and traffic study was introduced. She was reluctant to take further steps before the results were present, and she believed that some of the information may be very useful for new businesses. She inquired whether there were certain businesses that staff was imminently concerned with. Ms. Eliason confirmed that there were specific businesses that were very interested. Member Ezzy Ashcraft was concerned about losing the revenue from the lost parking in -lieu fees. She also supported use of alternate transportation, but was dismayed at the paucity of bicycle parking in Alameda. Member Kohlstrand noted that because of the mix of uses, it was not reasonable to expect each business to provide independent parking spaces, which would provide too much parking. She supported looking at shared parking opportunities, which she believed was a more rational approach to downtown parking. M/S Kohlstrand/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB -06 -23 to approve a Zoning Text Amendment to amend Subsection 30-4.9Ag.8. Off-street Parking and Loading Space of the C -C Community Commercial Zone of Chapter X (Development Regulations) to add a process for parking exceptions. AYES — 6 (Mariani absent); NOES — 0; ABSTAIN — 0 President Cunningham called for a five - minute recess. Planning Board Minutes Page 8 July 10, 2006 CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO. New Series AMENDING THE ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING SUBSECTION 30- 4.9A.g.8 (OFF- STREET PARKING AND LOADING SPACE) OF THE C -C COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ZONE OF CHAPTER XXX (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS), TO ADD A PROCESS FOR PARKING EXCEPTIONS WHEREAS, the proposed Zoning Text Amendment implements one of the General Themes of the General Plan by de- emphasizing the automobile; and WHEREAS, the proposed Zoning Text Amendment will have a positive effect on the general welfare of the community as it will assist in the implementation of the Downtown Vision Plan, the Webster Street Specific Plan and the Retail Strategy Report; and WHEREAS, the project is equitable because it will apply to the entire C -C (Community Commercial) Zoning District, which encompasses both core commercial areas along Park and Webster Streets. BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that: Section 1. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending Subsection 30- 4.9A.g.8. Off - Street Parking And Loading Space of the C -C Community Commercial Zone as follows: 30- 4.9A.g.8 Off - Street Parking And Loading Space: As regulated by Section 30 -7 unless a parking exception is granted. (a) A parking exception may be approved for new construction or existing buildings converted to new uses reducing the number of parking spaces to Tess than the number specified in the parking schedule in Section 30 -7.6 provided the following findings are made by the Planning Board: (i) The parking demand will be less than the requirements in Section 30 -7.6, and (ii) The probable long -term occupancy of the building or structure based on its design, will not generate additional parking demand. Introduction of Ordinance #5 -D 9 -5 -06 F (b) A parking exception granted by the Planning Board shall be limited to the specific structure and use. Any future alterations to the building or changes in the use shall require a new parking exception or shall be required to meet the parking supply requirements of the parking schedule in Section 30 -7.6. Section 2. Severability Clause. It is the declared intent of the City Council of Alameda that if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or provision of this ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not be so construed as to render invalid or unconstitutional the remaining provisions of this ordinance. Section 3. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of its final passage. Attest: Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda Presiding Officer of the Council I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was duly and regularly adopted and passed by Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2006, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this day of , 2006. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CURRENT APPLICATIONS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Real Estate /Land Development Seat and Retail /Commercial Seat Real Estate /Land Devl. Retail /Commercial Arshad A. Ahmed X Mark Breazeal X X James A. Edison X Frederic F. Hollister X Kirk H. Knight X Laura Levy X Jessica Lindsay, Incumbent X Patrick S. McGovern X William C. Russell X Alan J. Ryan X Karen M. Stefonek X Re: Agenda Item 7 -A 09 -05 -06 CURRENT APPLICATIONS GOLF COMMISSION Betsy E. Gammell, Incumbent Stephen W. Kling Paul D. Mountain John A. Piziali Victor K. Quintell Re: Agenda Item 7 -A 09 -05 -06 CURRENT APPLICATIONS RECREATION AND PARKS COMMISSION Bill L. Boscacci James R. Currier David W. Fritz Jo Kahuanui, Incumbent Joni D. Mahler Louie Martirez Joseph S. Restagno Gail A. Wetzork Re: Agenda Item 7 -A 09 -05 -06